Cities Index.
Exhibit D-1 - 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices

Fresno City Council
May 21, 2026

Document
Exhibit D-1 - 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report with Appendices
Meeting
May 21, 2026
Body
Fresno City Council
Pages
17
Original file
89.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on legistar2.granicus.com. That file is the official record.

Short Drilled Pile Foundations (Light Poles)
Axial Capacity
The compressive axial capacity of drilled piles may be estimated based on an allowable skin friction capacity of 150 pounds per square foot. The upper one foot of the skin friction capacity should be ignored. The uplift capacity may be estimated as 70 percent of the allowable compressive axial capacity. A one-third increase in the allowable capacities may be used for transient loading conditions such as wind or seismic loads.

Settlement
Static settlement of the proposed light pole foundations supported on short drilled piles, as recommended, is estimated to be less than ½ inch.

Lateral Resistance
The drilled pile foundations lateral resistance can be designed in general accordance with Section 1807.3 of the 2019 CBC. We recommend a lateral soil bearing pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth below grade. The total lateral soil bearing pressure should not exceed 2,500 psf per pile. Since drilled piles will act as isolated pole foundations, the allowable lateral soil bearing pressure may be 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 19 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
increased by a factor of 2 for short-term lateral loads provided the structure will not be adversely affected by ½ inch of lateral movement at the ground surface.

BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE
Concrete slab-on-grade floors are appropriate for the proposed warehouse, provided the subgrade is prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.2. In accordance with the CWDRs, we recommend the slab be a minimum nominal thickness of 6 inches and underlain by at least 6 inches of aggregate base material. Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base. Please note that Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base may utilize recycled materials. The use of recycled material under building slabs is typically not allowed and requires Costco’s approval.

A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used for design of slabs underlain 6 inches of aggregate base material. Pursuant to current Costco Wholesale standard construction design practices, we have evaluated the necessity of using a steel-reinforced slab.

Provided the building slabs are constructed on structural fill prepared as recommended in Section

5.2.4, the proposed warehouse buildings can be built with non-reinforced slabs.

Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Control joint spacing is a function of slab thickness, aggregate size, slump and curing conditions. The requirements for concrete slab thickness, joint spacing, and reinforcement should be established by the designer, based on experience, recognized design guidelines and the intended slab use.

Placement and curing conditions will have a strong impact on the final concrete slab integrity.

Kleinfelder typically recommends installation of a vapor barrier beneath the slab to mitigate potential moisture issues such as flooring performance and mold. However, we understand that Costco Wholesale has determined that moisture barriers are not to be used in construction of Costco Wholesale warehouses due to adverse effects on concrete curing and performance.

Therefore, we have provided construction recommendations that do not include installation of a moisture barrier, with the understanding that there will be an increased risk for adverse moisture issues.

EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted or overexcavated, as recommended in Section 5.2.2. Additionally, all flatwork 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 20 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
should be underlain at a minimum by 4.0 inches of aggregate base moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to not less than 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Flatwork should be at least four inches thick. Flatwork subjected to wheel loads should be designed in accordance with Section 4.8.

SITE DRAINAGE
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on proper irrigation and how well runoff water drains from the site. This drainage should be maintained both during construction and over the entire life of the project. The ground surface around structures should be graded such that water drains away from structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to do this depends on the landscaping type. Surface gradients should conform to current Costco Wholesale standards and the CBC.

Pavement underdrains at drainage inlets and catch basins should be included as shown in Detail 16_16 of the CWDRs. Drains should be designed and constructed per Costco’s standard details and laterals should extend at least 10 feet from the catch basins. Perimeter foundation drains are not necessary.

Where slabs or pavement areas abut landscaped areas, the aggregate base and subgrade soil should be protected against saturation. Vertical cut off structures are recommended to reduce lateral seepage under slabs from adjacent landscaped areas. Vertical cut-off structures may consist of deepened concrete perimeters, or equivalent, extending at least three inches below the base/subgrade interface. Vertical cut-off structures should be poured neat against undisturbed native soil or compacted fill. The cut-off structures should be continuous.

Operations personnel should be instructed to limit irrigation to the minimum level necessary to properly sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones and “perched” groundwater may develop, which could soften subgrade and reduce pavement life, and could also create potholes. We also recommend that the downspouts from roof drains be connected to a designed subsurface drainage system such as a storm sewer, etc. to avoid discharging water onto pavement areas and backfill zones around the warehouse.

Potential sources of water such as water pipes, drains, and the like should be frequently examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be promptly repaired. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 21 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Sewer lines beneath the warehouse should have a sufficient slope (at least 1 percent). Plumbing and utility lines should be provided with flexible joints or oversized sleeves where they penetrate floor slabs to prevent breakage caused by different slab movement. In addition, utility trenches should be plugged with cohesive backfill where they enter the building to reduce moisture infiltration along pipe bedding material. The cohesive backfill materials should have a plasticity index (PI) between 15 and 30 and no less than 70 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve.

RETAINING STRUCTURES
Design earth pressures for retaining structures depend primarily on the allowable wall movement, wall inclination, type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, surcharges, and drainage. The earth pressures provided assume that granular (sandy) soils will used as backfill. The on-site clays should not be used as retaining wall backfill. The granular backfill, which should meet the requirements for imported fill as defined in Section 5.2.4, should extend behind walls a horizontal distance of at least one-half the height of the wall. Determination of whether the active or at-rest condition is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of the walls. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.002 radians (deflection at the top of the wall of at least 0.002 x H, where H is the unbalanced wall height) may be designed for the active condition. Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition. The recommended active and at-rest earth pressures and passive resistance values are provided in Table 2.

TABLE 2

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR RETAINING STRUCTURES
(ONSITE/IMPORTED GRANULAR BACKFILL)
Wall Movement Backfill Condition Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (pcf)
Seismic Increment
(pcf)
Free to Deflect
(active condition) Level
40 9H*
Restrained
(at-rest condition) 60 N/A**
Note: * Walls supporting more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed to support an incremental seismic lateral pressure, which is applied as a triangular pressure distribution with a maximum pressure at the bottom of the wall, not inverted, and H is the height of the wall.
** for restrained walls, use the static active earth pressure and seismic increment to check the seismic condition; use at-rest earth pressure only to check the static condition; the larger loading of both cases should be used for the design of restrained walls.

The above lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of surcharges (e.g., traffic, footings), compaction, or truck-induced wall pressures. Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane drawn upward from the base of the excavation 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 22 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind walls may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.33 for cantilevered walls under active conditions and 0.50 for restrained walls under at-rest conditions.

Walls adjacent to areas subject to vehicular traffic should be designed for a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf). Lateral load contributions from other surcharges located behind walls may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known.

Walls should be properly drained or designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. Adequate drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition so that there is no hydrostatic buildup behind the wall. Walls should also be appropriately waterproofed to reduce the potential for staining. Drainage behind loading dock walls can consist of weep holes placed along the base of the wall. Weep holes should be spaced 10 to 15 feet apart and connected with a gravel drain consisting of approximately 2 cubic feet of clean gravel per foot of wall length wrapped with filter fabric. Other types of retaining walls should have a continuous back drain as described below.

For backfill of walls with a continuous back drain, except for the upper 2 feet, the backfill immediately behind retaining walls (minimum horizontal distance of 2 feet measured perpendicular to the wall) should consist of free-draining ¾-inch crushed rock wrapped with filter fabric. The upper 2 feet of cover backfill should consist of relatively impervious material. A 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe, placed perforations down at the bottom of the rock layer leading to a suitable gravity outlet, should be installed at the base of the walls.

As an alternative to the gravel drain noted above, a manufactured drain panel may be utilized behind retaining walls in addition to normal waterproofing. This system generally consists of a prefabricated drain panel lined with filter fabric. At the wall base, we recommend that a gravel drain be installed to collect and discharge drainage to a suitable outlet. The drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe, placed perforations down at the bottom of approximately 2 cubic feet of clean gravel per foot of wall length. The gravel drain should be wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). The pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet and cleanouts should be provided at appropriate intervals.

If drainage behind the wall is omitted, the wall should be designed for full hydrostatic pressure.

The design of any drain system should be submitted to Kleinfelder for review to check that our recommendations have been properly incorporated into the design. Installation of the drainage system should be reviewed and documented by a Kleinfelder representative. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 23 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

PAVEMENT SECTIONS
The required pavement structural sections will depend on the expected wheel loads, volume of traffic, and subgrade soils. We have provided asphalt concrete pavement sections for traffic indices provided in the CWDRs (Costco, 2020). Positive drainage of the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the subgrade, not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which reduces water infiltration into the base course.

The following pavement sections provided above are based on the soil conditions encountered during our field exploration, our assumptions regarding final site grades, and limited laboratory testing.

Costco Pavement Design Parameters
We developed pavement design recommendations using traffic loading parameters provided in the Costco Wholesale Development Requirements and the following test data:
• A 20-year pavement design life;
• Light-duty pavements subject to 6,600 passenger vehicle trips per day (Traffic Index of

5.0);
• Heavy-duty pavements subject to 30 tractor-trailer truck tips per day (Traffic Index of 7.0); • For asphalt concrete pavements, a design R-value of 50 based on laboratory test results; and
• For Portland cement concrete (PCC) Pavements, a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 550 pounds per square inch (psi) (approximate compressive strength of 4,000 psi); a modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for native subgrade; and interlock at the control joints.

Asphalt Concrete Pavement
We have developed new asphalt concrete pavement, also referred to as Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavements sections in accordance the Caltrans Highway Design Manual in lieu of the Asphalt Institute Manual Series (MS-1) so that the pavement structural sections are somewhat comparable to the existing sections. HMA should conform to requirements of the Costco Wholesale Specification Section 321216, Asphalt Paving. Table 2 presents recommended HMA 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 24 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
pavement sections. The designer should select the appropriate pavement sections based on project requirements. Prior to placement of aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.2.

TABLE 3

RECOMMENDED MINIMUM ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Use Traffic Index, TI
Asphalt
Concrete*
(inches)
Aggregate Base*
(inches)
Light-Duty
Pavement 5.0 3.0 4.0
Heavy-Duty
Pavement 7.0 4.0 5.0
* Rounded to the closest ½ inch.

Asphalt Performance Grade Binder
An asphalt performance grade (PG) binder of 64-10 should be used for the project and is locally available. This recommendation was developed in accordance with Costco Wholesale Asphalt Paving Specification Section 321216. Air temperature data near the project site was used with the MERRA Climate Data option and the PG binder was selected using the FHWA program LTTPBind Online web-based tool based on the AASHTO M323-13 standard. The high-end and low-end temperature rating was selected to provide a reliability of at least 98 and 90 percent, respectively.

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
We designed PCC pavement in accordance with the Portland Cement Association (PCA) Thickness Design for Concrete Pavements (PCA, 1984) using the design parameters stated above. For heavy-duty pavements, we recommend that PCC pavement should be comprised of

7.0 inches of PCC with 4.0 inches of aggregate base. Prior to placement of aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.2.

Longitudinal and transverse joint spacing should not exceed 12 feet and 15 feet, respectively.

Joint details should conform to PCA guidelines. Expansion joints in concrete slabs should be sealed with petroleum resistant sealant to prevent minor releases from impacting subsurface soil. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 25 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Aggregate Base
Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base and be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base utilizes recycled materials and require Costco’s approval prior to use.

Pavement Maintenance
Pavements may undergo movement due to changes in subgrade moisture content. This movement tends to accelerate pavement deterioration. A crack sealing program should be performed annually to slow pavement deterioration. Any areas where surface water stands on the surface should be remediated. Over time, as cracking becomes more pronounced, a slurry seal coat should be applied.

SOIL CORROSIVITY
We performed laboratory testing for parameters commonly used to evaluate corrosivity of soils, including pH, minimum resistivity, chloride, and soluble sulfate content. Table 4 presents the results.

TABLE 4

CORROSION TEST RESULTS
Location Depth
(ft)
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
pH
Soluble
Sulfate
Content
(percent)
Soluble
Chloride
Content
(percent)
TP-2 4-6 4,020 7.4 7.8 3.4
TP-4 4-6 6,160 7.3 11.5 3.0
TP-6 4-6 3,480 6.9 25.9 2.8
TP-9 4-6 10,450 6.4 1.0 0.8
TP-10 4-6 7,240 6.7 4.6 0.9
These tests are a generalized indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils on site may be more, less, or similarly corrosive in nature. Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than those noted.

Although Kleinfelder does not practice corrosion engineering, resistivity values between 3,000 to 5,000 ohm-cm are normally considered corrosive and resistivity values between 5,000 to 10,000 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 26 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
ohm-cm are considered moderately corrosive to buried ferrous metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2014). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-14, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required. The project structural engineer should review this data to determine if remedial measures are necessary for the concrete reinforcing steel.

INFILTRATION TESTING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
We evaluated the feasibility for infiltration throughout surrounding parking areas by performing a total of four borehole infiltration tests. Infiltration may be controlled primarily by factors such as the type and porosity of the surface filtering media, maintenance of these media, surface slope, surface vegetation, and intensity, duration, and type of precipitation. Surface drainage and maintenance will typically determine the site’s infiltration rate and the amount of water that will infiltrate for any given storm.

Based on visual soil classification and laboratory testing of the soil samples collected during our field explorations, the upper approximately 1 to 2 feet of the subsurface soils consist predominantly sandy lean clays and silts with variable amounts of sand underlain by sandy silts and silty sands to 5 feet bgs. Table 5 summarizes the unfactored short-term in-situ percolation rates for each test location.

TABLE 5

UNFACTORED SHORT-TERM PERCOLATION RATES
Infiltration Test
Location
Tested Depth from
Ground Surface (ft)
Short-Term
Percolation Rate (in/hr) Soil Description
INF-1 3-5 0.36 Sandy Silt (ML)
INF-2 3-5 1.38 Silty Sand (SM)
INF-3 3-5 0.75 Silty Sand (SM)
INF-4 3-5 1.05 Silty Sand (SM)
Note: Short-term percolation rate includes a reduction factor using the “Porchet Method” to adjust for non-vertical percolation through the sides of the borehole.

The short-term percolation rates provided in Table 5 have been reduced to account for non-vertical percolation through the sides of the borehole, but do not include any safety factors for long-term performance. While Fresno County does not provide specific guidance on a factor of safety, we recommend using a factor of safety of at least 3 due to the variability in test results and to account for long-term performance. The civil engineer should determine the applicability 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 27 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
of the factor of safety and may apply a higher factor of safety depending on the performance objectives. The long-term infiltration rate was estimated by dividing the short-term percolation rates shown in Table 4 and are presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6

LONG-TERM INFILTRATION RATES
Infiltration Test
Location
Short-Term
Percolation Rate
(in/hr)
Minimum
Recommended
Factor of Safety
Long-Term Infiltration
Rate (in/hr)
INF-1 0.36 3 0.1
INF-2 1.38 3 0.5
INF-3 0.75 3 0.3
INF-4 1.05 3 0.4
Based on the results of the infiltration testing and our laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for infiltration BMPs, provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction. Due to the variability in infiltration rates, we recommend that a design infiltration rate of 0.3 inches per hour be used for the basin invert elevations between 3 to 5 feet bgs.

If infiltration BMPs are impractical due to existing site constraints, we recommend alternatives, such as bio-filtration/bio-retention systems (bio-swales and planter boxes), be implemented at the project site. If bio-filtration/bio-retention systems are employed, we recommend that the BMPs be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. If planters are located within 10 feet of the building or building foundations, or adjacent to slabs and pavements, then some means of diverting water away from the building, building foundation soils, or soils that support slabs and pavements would be required, such as lining the planters.
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 28 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

GENERAL
The following recommendations should be used by the contractor for construction of the project.

EARTHWORK
General
Site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes, safety regulations and other local, state, or federal specifications, and the recommendations included in this report. References to maximum dry unit weights are established in accordance with the latest version of ASTM Standard Test Method D1557 (modified Proctor). The earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of Kleinfelder.

Site Preparation
Abandoned utilities and other existing features within the proposed development areas (if any are encountered) should be removed and the excavation(s) backfilled with engineered fill. Debris produced by demolition operations, including wood, steel, piping, plastics, etc., should be separated and disposed of off-site. Existing utility pipelines or conduits that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and are to be abandoned in place, should be plugged with non-shrinking cement grout to prevent migration of soil and/or water. Demolition, disposal, and grading operations should be observed and tested by a representative of Kleinfelder.

Prior to grading and subgrade preparation, all vegetation should be cut and removed from the site. Roots and vegetative matter in excess of one inch should be removed by screening or raking.

Other than plant roots, organic matter in the topsoil is minimal based on our laboratory testing (between ½ and 1½ percent). Based on the organic content tests, stripping of topsoil is not necessary. After grubbing, the surface soils can be moisture conditioned and recompacted as structural fill.

Soils within 10 feet of the warehouse building pad should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 2 feet below the bottom of the footings and floor slabs, whichever is deeper. If fill soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation within the building pads, the overexcavation should continue until the fill is removed. It should be noted that some isolated 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 29 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
areas did encounter fill deeper than 4 feet bgs. The overexcavated soils can be moisture conditioned and recompacted as structural fill.

Existing soils below the car wash facility should be overexcavated to depth of at least 2 feet below the bottom of foundations, moisture conditioned, and replaced as structural fill. The overexcavation should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 5 feet.

Soils in pavement, sidewalk, and other flatwork areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 18 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below the finished subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The overexcavated soils can be moisture conditioned and recompacted as structural fill. The overexcavation should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet.

Following overexcavation and prior to replacing soils, the exposed subgrade should be compacted with at least a 10-ton roller, fully-loaded tandem-axle dump truck or water truck. Areas identified as being soft or yielding may require additional compaction or overexcavation as determined by Kleinfelder.

Should grading be performed during or following extended periods of rainfall, the moisture content of the near-surface soils will be significantly above the optimum moisture content. These conditions could seriously impede grading by causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures include deep scarification and drying, removal and replacement with crushed rock and geotextile fabric, and/or lime treatment.

The site soils are fine-grained, moisture sensitive, and susceptible to disturbance, rutting, and pumping during construction. The contractor should plan to repair subgrade conditions that become unstable/disturbed and should develop a plan to manage subgrade trafficability across the site throughout the construction period. Features of this plan may include temporary surface haul roads, limited traffic routes, etc.

Foundation Excavations
Shallow Foundations
Following excavation to the foundation subgrade elevations, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations. If unsatisfactory material, such as soft or disturbed soil, debris or 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 30 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
otherwise unsuitable soil is present at the base of footing excavations, then unsuitable materials should be overexcavated and replaced (e.g. with structural concrete, 2-sack sand-cement slurry, structural fill) to the depth and extent determined by the geotechnical engineer.

Drilled Pile Foundations
The performance and capacities of piles can be influenced significantly by the selected construction methods and procedures used. Construction methods that create large zones of disturbance around the drilled shafts can lead to lower than expected skin friction due to excessive stress relief around the shaft length. Drilling of the pile shafts should be accomplished using conventional heavy-duty excavation equipment maintained in good condition.

The on-site soils contain sandy layers and caving of the pile shafts could occur. Temporary steel casing may be required to stabilize the sides of the pile shaft. Concrete should be placed immediately after drilling of the hole is complete. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a down hole tremie. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed but the bottom of the casing should be kept at least 5 feet below the top of the concrete.

Fill Material and Compaction Criteria
All material placed below foundation elements, structural elements, slabs, parking areas and roadways should be considered structural fill. The on-site soils, minus debris, organic matter, or other deleterious materials may be used as structural fill. Rock or other soil fragments greater than 3 inches in size should not be used in the fills.

Import soils, if required, should have no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension, no less than 70 percent of the particles passing the No. 4 sieve, no more than 30 percent of particles passing the No. 200 sieve, and a Plasticity Index (PI) less than 12. The contractor should provide documentation that all imported soil is free of hazardous materials, including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals, and harmful minerals. Test results with the geotechnical and analytical properties of the proposed import material should be provided to Costco for approval prior to transportation and use on site.

We recommend granular (sandy) fill soils and imported material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557) in accordance with the CWDRs. Clayey fill soils should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry unit weight 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 31 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
(ASTM D1557). Compacting clayey soils to at least 92 percent relative compaction will achieve the necessary strength assumed in our design recommendations.

Fill should be placed in loose horizontal lifts not more than 8 inches thick (loose measurement).

The moisture content of the fill should be maintained at -2 to +2 percent of optimum for sandy soils and above optimum for clayey soils during compaction. The moisture content of the clayey fill is considered very important, and therefore, both relative compaction and moisture content should be used to evaluate compaction acceptance. If both criteria are not within the specified tolerances, the fill should not be accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until the fill is placed within the specified tolerances.

Processing of on-site soil maybe required prior to placement as structural fill. Processing may require ripping the material, disking to break up clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture contents necessary for compaction. Compaction of mass graded areas should be accomplished with a sheep’s foot type roller compactor to aid in moisture conditioning. Utility trench backfill should be mechanically compacted. Flooding should not be permitted. Table 7 presents structural fill placement and compaction criteria.

TABLE 7

STRUCTURAL FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION CRITERIA
Fill Location/Use Material
Type
Relative Compaction1
(ASTM D698)
Moisture
Content
Range
Minimum
Compaction
Testing Frequency
Per Lift
Aggregate Base for
Pavements and
Concrete Slabs
Aggregate
Base At least 95 percent -2 to +2% of optimum 10,000 Square Feet Structural Areas
(Building Pads)
On-site Soils
or Imported
Material
At least 92 percent for
clayey soils
At least 95 percent for
sandy soils
Above
optimum
-2 to +2% of
optimum
10,000 Square Feet
Subgrade for
Pavements,
Sidewalks and
Other Flatwork
Areas
On-site Soils
or Imported
Material
At least 92 percent for
clayey soils
At least 95 percent for
sandy soils
Above
optimum
-2 to +2% of
optimum
15,000 Square Feet
Foundation and
Retaining Wall
Backfill
Imported
Material
At least 95 percent for
sandy soils
-2 to +2%
of optimum 1,000 Square Feet
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 32 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Utility Trenches
Backfill
On-site Soils
or Imported
Material
At least 92 percent for
clayey soils
At least 95 percent for
sandy soils
Above
optimum
-2 to +2% of
optimum
150 Linear Feet
Lawns or
Unimproved Areas
On-site Soils
or Imported
Material
At least 90 percent -2 to +2% of
optimum 20,000 Square Feet
Note: 1 Where two or more compaction specifications coincide, the more stringent specification should be utilized.

Excavation Characteristics
The upper soils are sandy soils. The excavations for the USTs and foundations should be excavatable with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment maintained in good condition.

However, caving of the sidewalls during excavation in sandy soils may occur depending on conditions at the time of excavation and should be anticipated by the contractor. In addition, difficult excavation may be encountered in heavily-cemented, hardpan layers located between 4 and 6 feet below grade.

A representative of Kleinfelder should be present during excavation in this area to observe the soil conditions. If soft, loose, or deleterious materials are encountered in the base of the excavation then the materials should be removed and replaced as compacted fill or otherwise remediated to provide competent bearing material under site improvements.

Temporary Excavations
All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including OSHA requirements. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of temporary construction slopes lies solely with the contractor. We are providing this information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information provided be interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for final engineering of excavations or shoring, construction site safety, or the contractors’ activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

Minor sloughing and/or raveling of slopes should be anticipated as they dry out. Where space for sloped embankments is not available, shoring will be necessary. In addition, excavations within a 1:1 plane extending downward from a horizontal distance of 2 feet beyond the bottom outer edge of existing improvements should not be attempted without bracing and/or underpinning the footings, as discussed above. The geotechnical engineer or their field representative should 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 33 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
observe the excavations so that modifications can be made to the excavations, as necessary, based on variations in the encountered soil conditions. All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including OSHA requirements, should be met.

All trench excavations should be braced and shored in accordance with good construction practice and all applicable safety ordinances and codes. Stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no closer to the edge of an excavation than a distance equal to the depth of the excavation, but no closer than 4 feet.

Oversize Material
Oversized material (e.g. material greater than 3 inches in diameter) is not anticipated to be encountered. However, if encountered, material larger than 3 inches in diameter should be removed and disposed of off-site.

Trench Backfill
Pipe zone backfill (i.e. material beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the pipe) should consist of imported soil less than ¾-inch in maximum dimension. Trench zone backfill (i.e., material placed between the pipe zone backfill and finished subgrade) may consist of onsite soil or imported fill that meets the requirements for engineered fill provided above.

If imported material is used for trench zone backfill, we recommend it consist of silty sand. In general, gravel should not be used for trench zone backfill due to the potential for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces present in this type of material and for water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained sand and/or gravel.

Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements only. More stringent material specifications may be required to fulfill local building requirements and/or bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend the project civil engineer develop these material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, and other factors beyond the scope of this study.

Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided for engineered fill in Section 5.2.4. Mechanical compaction is recommended; ponding or jetting should be avoided, especially in areas supporting structural loads or beneath concrete slabs supported on grade, pavements, or other improvements.
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 34 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

UNSTABLE SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
Should grading be performed during or following extended periods of rainfall, the moisture content of the near-surface soils will be significantly above the optimum moisture content. The moisture contents of the near surface soils during our field exploration were over optimum moisture content from recent rains and irrigation from agricultural use. These conditions could seriously impede grading by causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures include the following:
• Drying: Drying unstable subgrade involves disking or ripping wet subgrade to a depth of approximately 18 to 24 inches and allowing the exposed soil to dry. Multiple passes of the equipment (likely on a daily basis) will be needed because as the surface of the soil dries, a crust forms that reduces further evaporation. Frequent disking will help prevent the formation of a crust and will promote drying. This process could take several days to several weeks depending on the material, the depth of ripping, the number of passes, and the weather.
• Removal and Replacement with Crushed Rock and Geotextile Fabric: Unstable subgrade could be overexcavated 12 to 24 inches below existing grade and replaced with ¾- or 1-inch crushed rock underlain by geotextile fabric. The geotextile fabric should consist of a woven geotextile, such as Mirafi HP series or equivalent. The final depth of removal will depend upon the conditions observed in the field once overexcavation begins. The geotextile fabric should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
• Chemical Treatment: Unstable subgrade could be stabilized by mixing the upper 12 to 18 inches of the subgrade with Portland cement, Class C flyash or lime. For estimating purposes, an application rate of 10 to 12 percent Class C flyash, 3 to 5 percent high calcium quick lime, or 4 to 5 percent Portland cement may be used. Final application rates should be determined in the field at the time of construction in consultation with the geotechnical engineer. Chemical treatment should be performed by a specialty contractor experienced in this work. Since soil treatment uses the on-site soil, the expense of importing material can be avoided.

EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the existing soils should be overexcavated and subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and recompacted as recommended in Section 5.2.2. The 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 35 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
moisture content of the finished subgrade soils should be maintained around optimum prior to the placement of any flatwork or structural fill. Careful control of the water/cement ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing.

TEMPORARY SHORING
General
Temporary shoring may be required in the proposed UST area where the excavation cannot be adequately sloped. Temporary shoring may consist of a turn-key shoring system, soldier piles and lagging, or other system. General recommendations for design of temporary shoring are presented below.

The shoring design must be provided by a civil engineer registered in the State of California and experienced in the design and construction of shoring under similar conditions. Once the final excavation and shoring plans are complete, the plans and design should be reviewed by Kleinfelder for conformance with the design intent and geotechnical recommendations provided herein.

Lateral Pressures
For the design of cantilevered shoring, an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for level backfill. Where the surface of the retained earth slopes up away from the shoring, a greater pressure should be used. Design data can be developed for additional cases when the design conditions are established.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1H:1V plane drawn upward from the base of the shored excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The lateral contribution of a uniform surcharge load located immediately behind the wall may be calculated by multiplying the surcharge by 0.33 for the level backfill condition. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored wall may be provided once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a minimum, a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge (250 psf) is recommended to account for traffic or nominal construction loads. It should be noted that the above pressures do not include hydrostatic pressure and assume groundwater will not be encountered in the excavation. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 36 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Design of Soldier Piles
All soldier piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend the required embedment depths be calculated based on the principles of force and moment equilibrium. For this method, the allowable passive pressure against soldier piles that extend below the level of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid pressure of 300 pcf. The maximum lateral resistance value should not exceed 3,000 psf. To account for arching, the passive resistance may be assumed to act over a width

2.4 times the width of the embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least 2.5 pile diameters, center-to-center.

Drilling of the soldier pile shafts could be accomplished using heavy-duty drilling equipment. The on-site soils are sandy, and caving of the pile shafts could occur. In addition, difficult drilling may be encountered in heavily-cemented, hardpan layers. Temporary steel casing may be required to stabilize the sides of the pile shaft. Concrete for piles should be placed immediately after the drilling of the hole is complete. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled shaft using a tremie. Once concrete pumping is initiated, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete above the bottom of the tremie should be established and maintained throughout the concrete placement to prevent contamination of the concrete by soil inclusions. If steel casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed.

To develop full lateral resistance, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and undisturbed materials. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile that is below the planned excavated level should provide sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding materials.

Lagging
Continuous treated timber lagging should be used between the soldier piles. The lagging should be installed as the excavation proceeds. If treated timber is used, the lagging may remain in place after backfilling. The lagging should be designed for the recommended earth pressure but limited to a maximum value of 400 psf.

Some caving and running of the upper soils should be anticipated. To reduce the potential for loss of ground and settlement of the soil behind the wall, the contractor should backfill any space between the lagging and the cut slope with clean sand or sand-cement slurry after installation. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 37 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Deflection
Shoring adjacent to existing structures or improvements should be designed and constructed to reduce potential movement. The shoring system designer should evaluate potential deflections in their design.

Monitoring
Some deflection of the shored excavation should be anticipated during the planned excavation.

We recommend the project civil engineer perform a survey of all existing utilities and structures adjacent to the shored excavation. The purpose of this survey would be to evaluate the ability of existing utility lines or improvements to withstand horizontal movements associated with a shored excavation and to establish the baseline condition in case of unfounded claims of damage. If existing improvements are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements, alternative shoring systems may be required.

Horizontal and vertical movements of the shoring system should be monitored by a licensed surveyor. The construction monitoring and performance of the shoring system are ultimately the contractor’s responsibility. However, at a minimum, we recommend that the top of shoring be surveyed prior to excavation and that the top and bottom of the soldier beams be surveyed on a weekly basis until the shoring is not needed. Surveying should consist of measuring movements in vertical and two perpendicular horizontal directions.

PAVEMENTS
HMA Design
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) should conform to requirements of the Costco Wholesale Specification Section 321216, Asphalt Paving. Section 1.3.C of the HMA specification requires that the HMA section be placed in at least two lifts. The HMA specification allows the use of ½- or ¾-inch Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) mixes for the base course and ⅜- or ½-inch NMAS mixes for surface course. Maximum and minimum HMA compacted lift thicknesses are provided in Table 3.1 in Section 3.3.B of the HMA specification. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 38 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Construction Considerations
The pavement sections provided above are contingent on the following recommendations being implemented during construction.
• Pavement subgrade should be prepared as recommended in Section 5.2.2. • Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time the aggregate base materials are placed and compacted.
• Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
• Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet current Costco Wholesale Specifications Section 321216.
• Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet.

Note that pavement materials and construction must be completed in strict accordance with the Costco’s specifications that contain very specific pavement material (asphalt, aggregate and concrete) criteria and construction practices to be used (compaction and material sampling). The general contractor and pavement construction subcontractor should be aware that asphalt and concrete mix designs must be submitted to the design architect and Kleinfelder at least 45 days prior to the scheduled production and laydown for review and approval. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 39 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

ADDITIONAL SERVICES

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
We recommend Kleinfelder perform a review of geotechnical related portions of the project plans and specifications before they are finalized to see that geotechnical recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design. If we are not accorded the privilege of performing this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.

CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The construction process is an integral design component with respect to the geotechnical aspects of a project. Because geotechnical engineering is an inexact science due to the variability of natural processes, and because we sample only a limited portion of the soils affecting the performance of the proposed structure, unanticipated or changed conditions can be encountered during grading. Proper geotechnical observation and testing during construction are imperative to allow the geotechnical engineer the opportunity to verify assumptions made during the design process. Therefore, we recommend that Kleinfelder be retained during the construction of the proposed improvements to observe compliance with the design concepts and geotechnical recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions or methods of construction differ from those assumed while completing this study.

Our services are typically needed at the following stages of grading:
• After demolition and grubbing;
• During grading;
• During the installation of temporary construction shoring; • After the overexcavation, but prior to subgrade preparation; • During utility trench backfill;
• During fill placement of wall backfill;
• During base placement and site paving; and
• After excavation for foundations.
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 40 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Costco Wholesale and their agents for specific application to the proposed Costco Wholesale (CW# 20-0569) located at the northeast corner of West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive in Fresno, California. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.

The scope of services was limited to a background data review and the field exploration described in Section 1.2. It should be recognized that definition and evaluation of subsurface conditions are difficult. Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are generally made with incomplete knowledge of the subsurface conditions present due to the limitations of data from field studies. The conclusions of this assessment are based on our field exploration and laboratory testing programs, and engineering analyses.

Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive studies yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed study and analysis involves greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of service, which provide information for their purposes at acceptable levels of risk. The client and key members of the design team should discuss the issues covered in this report with Kleinfelder, so that the issues are understood and applied in a manner consistent with the owner’s budget, tolerance of risk and expectations for future performance and maintenance.

Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil or groundwater conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, the client is responsible for ensuring that Kleinfelder is notified immediately so that we may reevaluate the recommendations of this report. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the estimated Traffic Index or locations of the improvements, changes from that described in this report, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are not considered valid until the changes are reviewed, and the conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by Kleinfelder.
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 41 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
The scope of services for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site.

Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for interpretation by others of this report or the conditions encountered in the field. Kleinfelder must be retained so that all geotechnical aspects of construction will be monitored on a full-time basis by a representative from Kleinfelder, including site preparation, preparation of foundations, and placement of engineered fill and trench backfill. These services provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the actual soil and groundwater conditions encountered during construction and to evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the site conditions. If Kleinfelder is not retained to provide these services, we will cease to be the engineer of record for this project and will assume no responsibility for any potential claim during or after construction on this project. If changed site conditions affect the recommendations presented herein, Kleinfelder must also be retained to perform a supplemental evaluation and to issue a revision to our original report.

This report, and any future addenda or reports regarding this site, may be made available to bidders to supply them with only the data contained in the report regarding subsurface conditions and laboratory test results at the point and time noted. Bidders may not rely on interpretations, opinion, recommendations, or conclusions contained in the report. Because of the limited nature of any subsurface study, the contractor may encounter conditions during construction which differ from those presented in this report. In such event, the contractor should promptly notify the owner so that Kleinfelder’s geotechnical engineer can be contacted to confirm those conditions. We recommend the contractor describe the nature and extent of the differing conditions in writing and that the construction contract include provisions for dealing with differing conditions. Contingency funds should be reserved for potential problems during earthwork and foundation construction.

This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party, other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and the client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claims or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 42 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI318-14R).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2019. Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI 7-16).

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Site Code WSE 3688408N1199053W001 https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2021. Interactive oil well location map, available at website:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/index.html.

California State Water Resources Control Board, Geo Tracker data management system, accessed via web March 2021 https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ California Geological Survey (CGS), 2018. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Fresno Quadrangle
California Geologic Survey (CGS) (Hart and Bryant, 2007), Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, Fresno quadrangle
California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology) (Matthews and Burnett, 1965))
Costco, 2020. Costco Wholesale Development Requirements, Version 2020, dated December 18, 2020.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009, FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, San Joaquin County, California and incorporated areas, Map number 06019C1535H, effective dated February 18, 2009.

International Code Council, Inc., 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A. (2010). Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey.
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 Page 43 of 43 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
Kimley Horn, 2021. Preliminary Overall Grading Plans, Costco Fresno, CW# 20-0569, dated April 1, 2021
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), 2006. “Corrosion Basics, An Introduction, 2nd Edition” National Association of Corrosion Engineers.

OSHPD, 2021, Seismic Design Maps website, accessed via web March 2021 https://seismicmaps.org/.

Portland Cement Association (PCA), 1984, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements, Skokie, Illinois: Portland Cement Association.

Portland Cement Association, 1988. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois.

The Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
United States Geologic Survey, 2015, 7½ Minute Series Topographic Map, Midway Quadrangle, California, scale 1:24000.

Figures
© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
Copyright:(c) 2018 Garmin
£
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet

SITE VICINITY MAP

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 20212905
DD
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.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

FIGURE
www.kleinfelder.com
Detail
Area
Base:

DeLorme World Base, ESRI
Document Path: W:\2021\20212905.001A - Costco Fresno New Warehouse\20212905_1.mxd FILE NAME:
20212905_1.mxd
Date Saved: 4/29/2021 10:10:48 AM
4/29/2021
JDS
SITE
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS © 2021 TomTom INF-4
KB-35 KB-36
KB-28
KB-34
KB-29
KB-32
KB-31
KB-33
KB-30
KB-26 KB-25 KB-27
KB-22 KB-23 KB-24
KB-18 KB-20 KB-19
KB-15
KB-16 KB-17
KB-1
KB-38
KB-9
KB-10 KB-11
KB-14
KB-21
KB-2
KB-12
KB-4 KB-3
KB-5
KB-6 KB-7
KB-8
TP-1
TP-2
TP-4
TP-10 TP-9
TP-8
TP-7
TP-6
TP-5
INF-3
INF-2
INF-1
TP-3
KB-13
KB-37
TP-18
TP-17
TP-16
TP-15
TP-14
TP-12
TP-13
TP-11
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.

N CAD FILE: W:\2021\20212905.001A - Costco Fresno New Warehouse\20212905.dwg LAYOUT: F2 PLOTTED: 4/29/2021 9:51 AM BY: jeff sala

DRAWN BY
DATE:

PROJECT NO.

CHECKED BY
REVISED:

FIGURE EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
20212905
JDS
DD
04/29/2021
2 REFERENCE:

BASE MAPPING CREATED FROM PLAN TITLED " PRELIMINARY
OVERALL GRADING, SHEET C1.10", DATED: 04/01/2021 AND
PREPARED BY KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

LEGEND
BORING LOCATION (Kleinfelder, 2021 Investigation)
INFILTRATION TEST LOCATION (Kleinfelder, 2021
Investigation)
TEST PIT LOCATION (Kleinfelder, 2021 Investigation)
0 SCALE IN FEET
200 400
SCALE: 1" = 200'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Appendix A
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 A-1 of 2 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATIONS

GENERAL
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 38 borings and excavating 18 test pits.

A total of 21 borings and 6 test pits were drilled/excavated in the building area; 13 borings and 5 test pits were drilled/excavated in the parking and drive areas; 4 borings and 1 test pit were drilled/excavated in the fuel facility; 2 test pits were excavated within the car wash facility; and finally 2 test pits were excavated within the outparcels adjacent to the Costco parking lot.

The borings were drilled using truck-mounted, hollow-stem-auger drilling equipment to depths of approximately 21½ and 51½ below the existing ground surface (bgs) in the warehouse building area; approximately 11½ feet bgs in the parking and drive areas; and approximately 26½ feet bgs in the fuel facility area. The test pits were excavated to depths of about 10 feet bgs or practical refusal with a rubber tired backhoe. The approximate locations of the borings and test pits are presented on Figure 2, Exploration Location Map.

Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified and various geophysical techniques were used at the boring locations to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. In addition, Kleinfelder also employed a private utility location company (1st Call Utility location services) to clear all excavation areas prior to the commencement of fieldwork.

The boring and test pit logs are presented as Figures A-3 through A-62. An explanation to the log is presented as Figures A-1 through A-2. The Boring/Test Pit Log describes the earth materials encountered, samples obtained and show field and laboratory tests performed. The log also shows the location, boring/test pit number, drilling/excavation date and the name of the drilling/excavation subcontractor. The borings and test pits were logged by a Kleinfelder engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.

A modified-California sampler was used to obtain drive samples of the soil encountered. This sampler consists of a 2.5-inch O.D., 2-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is pushed or driven a total of 18-inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in six-inch sleeves for laboratory testing. An additional 2 inches of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The sampler was driven using a 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 A-2 of 2 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder
140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed blow count and is recorded on the Log of Boring.

Samples were also obtained using a Standard Penetration Sampler (SPT). This sampler consists of a 2-inch O.D., 1-inch I.D. split barrel shaft that is advanced into the soils at the bottom of the drill hole a total of 18 inches. The sampler was driven using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is termed the blow count (N) and is recorded on the Log of Boring. The procedures we employed in the field are generally consistent with those described in ASTM Standard Test Method D1586.

Bulk and grab samples of the near-surface soils were directly retrieved from the auger cuttings from the borings and the excavated material in the test pits.

A-1

FIGURE GRAPHICS KEY

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
The report and graphics key are an integral part of these logs. All data and interpretations in this log are subject to the explanations and limitations stated in the report.

Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual or differ from those shown.

No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil or rock conditions between individual sample locations.

Logs represent general soil or rock conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.

In general, Unified Soil Classification System designations presented on the logs were based on visual classification in the field and were modified where appropriate based on gradation and index property testing.

Fine grained soils that plot within the hatched area on the Plasticity Chart, and coarse grained soils with between 5% and 12% passing the No. 200 sieve require dual USCS symbols, ie., GW-GM, GP-GM, GW-GC, GP-GC, GC-GM, SW-SM, SP-SM, SW-SC, SP-SC, SC-SM.

If sampler is not able to be driven at least 6 inches then 50/X indicates number of blows required to drive the identified sampler X inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.

ABBREVIATIONS
WOH - Weight of Hammer
WOR - Weight of Rod

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SILT-SAND

MIXTURES

CLAYEY GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY-SILT MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE CLAY FINES
SW
SW-SC

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES
Cu 4 and/
or 1 Cc 3 >
>

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

ORGANIC CLAYS & ORGANIC SILTS OF

MEDIUM-TO-HIGH PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT
CLAYS

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILT

INORGANIC CLAYS-SILTS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
_

SILTY SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL-SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL-CLAY MIXTURES
SW-SM

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-SILT-CLAY

MIXTURES
CL
CL-ML
>
<
<
SANDS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
SANDS
WITH >
12%
FINES

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE FINES
Cu 4 and/
or 1 Cc 3>
CLEAN
GRAVEL
WITH
<5%
FINES

GRAVELS
WITH
5% TO
12%
FINES
OL
CH

CLAYEY GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES

FINE GRAINED SOILS
(Half or more of material is
smaller than
the #200 sieve)

GRAVELS
WITH >
12%
FINES
>
Cu 4 and
1 Cc 3
>_
_ BULK SAMPLE

CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(3 in. (76.2 mm.) outer diameter)

STANDARD PENETRATION SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
(2 in. (50.8 mm.) outer diameter and 1-3/8 in. (34.9 mm.) inner diameter)
_
GM
GC
GW
GP
GW-GM
GW-GC
_ _
_

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
<

SAMPLE/SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHICS
>
<
<
>
CLEAN
SANDS
WITH
<5%
FINES
GRAVELS (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than the #4 sieve) Cu 6 and/
or 1 Cc 3
Cu 6 and/
or 1 Cc 3
>
Cu 6 and
1 Cc 3
SC-SM
Cu 4 and
1 Cc 3
< _

ORGANIC SILTS & ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF

LOW PLASTICITY

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
less than 50)

WELL-GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS,

SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES
MH
OH
ML
GC-GM
COARSE GRAINED SOILS (More than half of material is larger than the #200 sieve) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D 2487)
<
Cu 6 and
1 Cc 3
GP-GM
GP-GC
_
_ _<
>
<
<
>
SP
SP-SM
SP-SC
SM
SC
< _<
>

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SILTS AND CLAYS
(Liquid Limit
50 or greater)
SANDS (Half or more of coarse fraction is smaller than the #4 sieve) NOTE: USE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ON THE LOG TO DEFINE A GRAPHIC THAT MAY NOT BE PROVIDED ON THIS LEGEND.

GROUND WATER GRAPHICS

OBSERVED SEEPAGE
WATER LEVEL (level after exploration completion)
WATER LEVEL (level where first observed)
WATER LEVEL (additional levels after exploration)
NOTES
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_GEO-LEG1 (GRAPHICS KEY) WITH USCS] PLOTTED: 03/11/2021 11:55 AM BY: GGomez DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
PROJECT NO.:

FIGURE

CALIFORNIA

SAMPLER
(# blows/ft)

MODIFIED CA

SAMPLER
(# blows/ft)
SPT-N60
(# blows/ft)
A-2

SOIL DESCRIPTION KEY

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
85 - 100
65 - 85
35 - 65
15 - 35
<5 0 - 15
Very Dense
Dense
Medium Dense
>50
Loose
Very Loose
FROM TERZAGHI AND PECK, 1948

DESCRIPTION
Non-Plastic NP
LL
Low < 30
Medium 30 - 50
High > 50
LL is from Casagrande, 1948. PI is from Holtz , 1959.

CONSISTENCY
<2
Moist

DESCRIPTION
Strongly

FIELD TEST
>30
Very Soft
PI
NP
Either the LL or the PI (or
both) may be used to
describe the soil plasticity.

The ranges of numbers
shown here do not imply
that the LL ranges
correlate with the PI
ranges for all soils.

DESCRIPTION
Damp but no
visible water
Boulders
Cobbles
coarse
fine
Gravel
Sand
Fines

GRAIN SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.)
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.) Fist-sized to basketball-sized 3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.) Thumb-sized to fist-sized

0.19 - 0.75 in. (4.8 - 19 mm.) Pea-sized to thumb-sized #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19 in. (2 - 4.9 mm.)

0.017 - 0.079 in. (0.43 - 2 mm.)
#200 - #40
coarse
fine
medium

SIEVE SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE
>12 in. (304.8 mm.) Larger than basketball-sized
3 - 12 in. (76.2 - 304.8 mm.)
3/4 -3 in. (19 - 76.2 mm.)
#4 - 3/4 in. (#4 - 19 mm.)
Rock salt-sized to pea-sized
#40 - #10 Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized

0.0029 - 0.017 in. (0.07 - 0.43 mm.) Flour-sized to sugar-sized Passing #200 <0.0029 in. (<0.07 mm.) Flour-sized and smaller

DESCRIPTION
Secondary
Constituent is
Fine Grained
Secondary
Constituent is
Coarse Grained
SPT - N60
(# blows / ft)
Soft
Stiff
Very Stiff
Hard
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
Weakly
Crumbles or breaks
with handling or slight
finger pressure
Crumbles or breaks
with considerable finger
pressure

UNCONFINED

COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (Qu)(psf)

VISUAL / MANUAL CRITERIA
<500

0.5 PP <1
1 PP <2
2 PP <4
4 PP >8000
4000 - 8000
500 - 1000
1000 - 2000
2000 - 4000
Dry
Wet
Visible free water,
usually soil is below
water table
Thumb will penetrate more than 1 inch (25 mm). Extrudes between fingers when squeezed.

Thumb will penetrate soil about 1 inch (25 mm).

Remolded by light finger pressure.

Thumb will penetrate soil about 1/4 inch (6 mm).

Remolded by strong finger pressure.

Can be imprinted with considerable pressure from thumb.

Thumb will not indent soil but readily indented with
thumbnail.

Thumbnail will not indent soil.

DESCRIPTION
Alternating layers of varying material or color with the layer less than 1/4-in. thick, note thickness.
15 - 25
> 25

FIELD TEST
Absence of
moisture, dusty,
dry to the touch
Moderately
Will not crumble or
break with finger
pressure
Pocket Pen
(tsf)
Term
of
Use
<5%
With
Modifier
5 to <15%
15%
Trace <15%
15 to <30%
30%
AMOUNT
Fissured
Slickensided
Blocky
Lensed

CRITERIA
Stratified
Laminated
Fracture planes appear polished or glossy, sometimes striated.

Alternating layers of varying material or color with layers at least 1/4-in. thick, note thickness.

Breaks along definite planes of fracture with
little resistance to fracturing.

Cohesive soil that can be broken down into small angular lumps which resist further breakdown.

Inclusion of small pockets of different soils, such as small lenses of sand scattered through a mass of clay; note thickness.

None
Weak
Strong
No visible reaction

RELATIVE

DENSITY
(%)

APPARENT

DENSITY
Some reaction,
with bubbles
forming slowly
Violent reaction,
with bubbles
forming
immediately

DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
PP < 0.25
Medium Stiff

0.25 PP <0.5
30 - 50
10 - 30
4 - 10
<4
>60
35 - 60
12 - 35
5 - 12
<4
>70
40 - 70
15 - 40
5 - 15
< 15
Rounded
Subrounded Particles have nearly plane sides but have well-rounded corners and edges.

Angular Particles have sharp edges and relatively plane sides with unpolished surfaces.

Subangular
Particles have smoothly curved sides and no edges.

Particles are similar to angular description but have rounded edges.

DESCRIPTION CRITERIA

PLASTICITY

MOISTURE CONTENT

CONSISTENCY - FINE-GRAINED SOIL REACTION WITH

HYDROCHLORIC ACID

STRUCTURE

SECONDARY CONSTITUENT CEMENTATION

APPARENT / RELATIVE DENSITY - COARSE-GRAINED SOIL

GRAIN SIZE

ANGULARITY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_GEO-LEG 2 (SOIL DESC KEY)] PLOTTED: 03/11/2021 11:56 AM BY: GGomez DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
PROJECT NO.:

99.6 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
red, moist, organic material, fine sand (Plow
depth observed = 0-6 inches)
SILT (ML): low to medium plasticity, pink to
brown, moist, hard, iron oxide
Trace fine sand
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown,
moist, very stiff, iron oxide
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink, moist, hard,
iron oxide
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

28.9 12.9
BC=12
17 20
BC=11
20 19
BC=5
10 9
BC=11
14 21
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-3

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-1
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84017°
Longitude: -119.90781°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Warm/clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:32 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
102.2
71 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-6 inches)
SILT (ML): low to medium plasticity, pink to
brown, white mottling, moist, very stiff, weak to
moderately cemented, iron oxide
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, pink to reddish brown, moist,
dense
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense
Fine to coarse grained sand
SILT (ML): low plasticity, light pink, moist,
stiff, weakly cemented
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

28.1 10.1

2.1 10.9
BC=10
12 9
BC=15
20 20
BC=4
4 6
BC=7
11 21
PP=4.5
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-4

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-2
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-2
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84002°
Longitude: -119.99090°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 294.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Warm/clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
260
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:32 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

15.6 99.2
104.2
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, (Plow depth observed = 0-6
inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic to low plasticity, red, moist,
moderately cemented
Clayey SAND with Silt (SC): very dense,
strongly cemented
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink to
reddish yellow, moist, hard
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to coarse-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 23,
2021.

NR
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

6.6 10.7

3.8 BC=25
30 50/3"
BC=2
15 17
BC=12
17 19
PP=4.5
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-5

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-3
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-3
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83934°
Longitude: -119.90809°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:32 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

98.2 3.8
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine to
medium sand, (Plow depth observed = 0-5
inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
low plasticity, red, moist, hard pan layer at

2.75 feet
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, pinkish brown, moist, dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): reddish brown,
moist, medium dense
Loose
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

8.4 5.6

10.0 2.6
BC=14
18 18
BC=12
12 15
BC=3
4 5
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-6

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-4
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-4
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83929°
Longitude: -119.90932°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Warm/clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:32 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
110.0
106.8

98.1 101.3
114.3
Clayey SAND (SC): non-plastic, pale brown,
moist, fine sand, (Plow depth observed = 0-6
inches)
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL)
Clayey SILT (CL-ML): low to medium
plasticity, brown, moist, hard, moderately
cemented
Low plasticity
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, pink, moist,
dense, fine to medium grained sand, iron
oxide
4" Layer of (CL-ML) at 11 feet
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, brown, moist,
hard, fine sand
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pale
brown, moist, very stiff, fine sand
SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown, moist,
hard
Low to medium plasticity
Medium plasticity, very stiff
Non plasticity, hard
The boring was terminated at approximately

26.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

21.0 15.0

11.1 11.3

10.0 6.3

10.4 BC=16
16 20
BC=27
43 45
BC=8
18 24
BC=11
16 18
BC=15
30 27
BC=10
11 15
BC=12
16 17
BC=15
30 50/6"
BC=8
8 14
BC=23
32 49
BC=0
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Hand layer from 2.5 to 3 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-7

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-5
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-5
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84022°
Longitude: -119.90800°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:33 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
111.8
108.5

98.9 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine to medium sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-7 inches)
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): low to medium
plasticity, brown, moist, hard, weakly
cemented
Silty CLAY with Sand (CL-ML): low plasticity,
brown, moist, hard, weak to moderately
cemented, fine to medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
very dense
SILT with Sand (ML): fine-grained,
non-plastic, pale brown to reddish yellow,
moist, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, brown,
moist, hard, weakly cemented
Low plasticity
Moderately cementation, medium plasticity
Pink to brown
Increase in sand content
Brown to yellowish brown, fine sand, low
plasticity
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): pink to brown,
moist, medium dense, fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

26.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
NR
NR
NR
NR

10.4 31.8

5.0 6.2

8.7 BC=30
31 35
BC=25
30 35
BC=7
9 12
BC=7
9 12
BC=10
31 30
BC=20
20 21
BC=13
21 29
BC=25
30 32
BC=2
5 8
BC=4
8 10
NP
Hand Auger down to 1.25 feet
Hand layer from 1.25 to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
NP
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-8

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-6
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-6
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84004°
Longitude: -119.90816°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:33 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
109.3
120.2
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth
observed = 0-8 inches)
SILT (ML): low plasticity, brown, moist, hard,
moderately to strongly cemented
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, non-plastic, yellowish
brown, moist, dense
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pale brown,
moist, very stiff, fine to medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
reddish yellow, moist, medium dense, fine
sand
SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown, moist,
hard
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pale
brown, moist, very stiff
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): low to medium
plasticity, brown, moist, hard, trace fine sand
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink to
brown, moist, stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): brown pale, moist, medium dense, fine sand The boring was terminated at approximately

26.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

10.5 27.5

10.7 11.7
BC=38
48 50/3"
BC=21
20 25
BC=11
11 12
BC=7
9 8
BC=13
14 41
BC=7
9 21
BC=25
25 41
BC=7
6 7
BC=5
7 8
BC=9
10 11
NP
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Hand layer from 1.5 to 3.25 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger NP
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-9

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-7
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-7
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84000°
Longitude: -119.90836°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
s7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:33 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
101.1
108.5
102.8
73 82
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth
observed = 0-12 inches)
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, brown to
yellish brown, moist, hard, moderately to
strongly cemented, fine sand
SILT (ML): low plasticity, brown, moist, very
stiff, weakly cemented
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, pink to brown, moist, medium
dense
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, reddish yellow, moist,
dense
SILT with Sand (ML): low to medium
plasticity, reddish yellow, moist, medium stiff
SILT (ML): non-plastic, pinkish brown, moist,
hard
Trace fine sand, yellowish brown, very stiff
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pale
brown, moist, stiff, fine sand
SILT (ML): low to medium plasticity, pale
brown, moist, hard, iron oxide
The boring was terminated at approximately

26.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

11.9 6.2

9.0 BC=31
48 50/2"
BC=13
16 12
BC=8
10 14
BC=9
15 24
BC=2
4 9
BC=6
12 20
BC=12
12 13
BC=8
9 16
BC=3
4 6
BC=8
16 25
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Hand layer from 1.5 to 3.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-10

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-8
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-8
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83988°
Longitude: -119.90844°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 294.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
260
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:34 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
100.8
100.8
112.0

3.1 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-12 inches)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): red, fine to medium
grained sand
Silty CLAY with Sand (CL-ML): low plasticity,
brown, moist, hard, weakly cemented, fine
sand
Decrease in sand content
SILT with Clay (ML): non-plastic, reddish
brown to light brownish gray, moist, hard
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt and Clay
(SP-SM): non-plastic, yellowish brown,
moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, pink, moist,
medium dense, fine sand
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink,
moist, hard, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): non-plastic, olive brown, moist, dense, fine to medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, brown, moist, medium
dense
Fine to coarse grained
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.5 11.1

11.9 11.2

11.1 6.9

2.6 BC=7
12 50/2"
BC=20
25 24
BC=3
7 9
BC=9
13 18
BC=12
16 21
BC=7
8 10
BC=5
5 7
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-11

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-9
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-9
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83877°
Longitude: -119.90798°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:34 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
47 Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, brown, moist, medium
dense
Silty CLAY with Sand (CL-ML): low to
medium plasticity, pink to brown, moist, very
stiff, weakly cemented, fine sand
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pale
brown, moist, hard, fine sand
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): medium plasticity,
light reddish brown, moist, very stiff, weakly
cemented, fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 25,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
BC=6
7 9
BC=6
13 16
BC=14
43 50/2"
BC=9
9 12
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-11

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-9
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-9
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83877°
Longitude: -119.90798°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S11
S12
S13
S14
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:34 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
102.2

97.1 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-12 inches)
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, brown, moist, fine sand
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): medium plasticity,
yellowish brown, moist, hard
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, reddish yellow, moist,
medium dense
Pink to reddish yellow
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): medium plasticity, pink
to brown, moist, hard
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, dark pink, moist, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

11.3 1.4

1.1 18.3
BC=17
23 28
BC=7
8 9
BC=4
5 7
BC=7
16 19
BC=8
14 21
26 Hand Auger down to 2 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
5 Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-12

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-10
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-10
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83875°
Longitude: -119.90853°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:34 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

16.5 100.6
100.5

99.4 106.1
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
red, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
Moderately cemented
SILT (ML): non-plastic, black to brown,
moist, medium stiff, weakly cemented
Stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, non-plastic, yellowish
brown, moist, dense
SILT with Sand (ML): fine-grained,
non-plastic, pink to brown, moist, hard
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink to brown, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.7 11.0

10.9 5.7

9.1 BC=3
6 7
BC=6
6 13
BC=12
14 21
BC=10
20 24
BC=7
14 20
Hand Auger down to 2.75 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-13

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-11
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-11
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83871°
Longitude: -119.90914°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:35 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
107.1

94.0 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-9 inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): low to medium plasticity,
reddish yellow, white mottle, moist, very stiff,
strongly cemented
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): fine
to medium-grained, non-plastic, reddish
yellow to pink, moist, very dense, moderately
cemented
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink,
moist, very stiff, fine sand
SILT (ML): low to medium plasticity, pink,
moist, stiff, weakly cemented
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.0 4.7

9.5 21.5
BC=8
11 18
BC=11
30 40
BC=3
12 13
BC=4
6 8
Hand Auger down to 0.75 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-14

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-12
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-12
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83875°
Longitude: -119.91006°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Cool/Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
5A
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:35 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
105.6
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-9 inches)
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): fine
to medium-grained, low plasticity, reddish
brown, moist, moderately cemented
SILT (ML): pink, moist, very stiff, moderately
to strongly cemented
Trace fine sand, non plastic
SILT with Sand (ML): pink to reddish brown,
moist, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, reddish yellow & pink, moist,
dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
3"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

3.9 6.2

17.1 BC=9
10 18
BC=6
9 10
BC=13
18 23
Hand Auger down to 1.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-15

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-13
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-13
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83844°
Longitude: -119.91035°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny & cool Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:35 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-12 inches)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine to
medium sand
SILT with Sand (ML): low plasticity, pink with
iron oxyde, moist, hard, weak to moderately
cemented
Silty SAND (SM): fine-grained, pink, moist,
medium dense
Very dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
NR

8.9 5.0
BC=17
21 34
PP=3.5
BC=6
7 8
BC=25
50/5"
Hand Auger down to 2.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-16

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-14
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-14
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83843°
Longitude: -119.90938°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Warm/Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:35 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/5/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
104.4

94.5 109.1
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
SILT with Sand (ML): light yellowish brown,
low to moderate, moist, stiff, fine sand
SILT (ML): low plasticity, yellowish brown,
white mottling, moist, stiff
Moderately to strongly cementation, hard
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense
Clayey SILT with Sand (CL-ML): low to
medium plasticity, yellowish brown, moist,
stiff, fine to coarse sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Sand (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, yellowish brown, moist, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, reddish yellow, moist,
medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 25,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
NR
NR
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.5 13.9

13.2 16.0

2.2 BC=5
5 5
BC=6
15 16
BC=5
7 9
BC=5
5 6
BC=8
9 17
BC=7
7 9
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-17

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-15
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-15
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83838°
Longitude: -119.90912°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:35 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

11.2 118.1
106.2
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
Increase in sand content
SILT (ML): low to medium plasticity,
yellowish brown, moist, hard
SILT with Sand (ML): low plasticity, yellowish
brown, moist, hard, fine to medium sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, reddish yellow, moist,
medium dense
Fine grained, trace clay
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, moist, stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

8.9 18.5

10.4 BC=35
43 32
BC=6
8 5
BC=5
7 9
BC=3
5 9
BC=9
13 14
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-18

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-16
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-16
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83846°
Longitude: -119.90884°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:36 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

7.7 102.1
110.7
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, fine sand, (Plow
depth observed = 0-12 inches)
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, hard
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt and Clay
(SP-SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, reddish yellow, moist, medium
dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, non-plastic to low plasticity,
brown, moist, medium dense, trace Silt and
Clay
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to coarse-grained,
low plasticity, olive brown, moist, medium
dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pale red to pink, moist,
medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
3"
6"
6"

10.1 9.3

21.1 6.3

3.1 BC=13
25 33
PP=>4.5
BC=7
7 9
BC=9
10 10
BC=7
8 13
BC=6
8 12
17 6
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-19

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-17
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-17
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83846°
Longitude: -119.90885°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:36 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
102.3
112.8
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
red, fine to medium sand, (Plow depth
observed = 0-7 inches)
Iron present, increase in sand content
Sandy SILT (ML): reddish yellow, moist,
hard, moderately to strongly cemented, fine to
medium sand
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink to brown,
moist, hard, moderately cemented
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, brownish pink,
moist, medium dense, iron oxide
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
fine-grained, non-plastic, pink, moist, medium
dense
Increase in sand size, fine to coarse grained
Silty SAND (SM): fine-grained, olive brown,
moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

6.9 32.6

6.6 2.6
BC=18
38 37
BC=13
17 16
BC=4
6 6
BC=9
12 12
BC=5
5 5
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-20

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-18
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-18
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83824°
Longitude: -119.90793°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:36 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity,
reddish brown, (Plow depth observed = 0-12
inches)
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, red
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink to red, moist,
hard, moderately to strongly cemented
Iron oxide
Trace fine sand, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
Fine to coarse grained
Yellowish brown, trace Silt, fine to medium
grained, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
3"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

8.1 22.1

23.5 BC=17
15 18
BC=9
21 41
PP=>4.5
BC=9
10 16
BC=6
6 8
BC=4
7 12
BC=13
16 16
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-21

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-19
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-19
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83822°
Longitude: -119.90842°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:36 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
103.3
103.0
101.0
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine to medium sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-4 inches)
Silty CLAY with Sand (CL-ML): low plasticity,
reddish yellow, moist, very stiff, fine sand
Moderate to strongly cemented, hard, non
plastic
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink to yellow, moist, medium
dense
Silty SAND (SM): yellowish brown, moist,
dense, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, light gray to pink, moist,
dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 25,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
4"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

21.0 17.5

1.7 1.1
BC=31
15 10
BC=10
25 43
BC=9
9 17
BC=6
7 9
BC=6
7 26
BC=10
16 21
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-22

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-20
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-20
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83821°
Longitude: -119.90903°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:37 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
121.4
106.5
27 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
low plasticity, reddish yellow, moist, medium
dense, moderately to strongly cemented
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): fine
to coarse-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense, trace 1/2" gravel
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, reddish yellow to pink, moist,
medium dense
Increase in sand size, fine to coarse grained
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.9 4.3

2.3 BC=14
14 8
BC=8
10 17
BC=4
4 6
BC=4
6 9
Hand Auger down to 1.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-23

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-21
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-21
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83803°
Longitude: -119.91001°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Cool/Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:37 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
105.6
109.3

98.3 2.9
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-6 inches)
Red, increase in sand content, fine to medium
sand
SILT with Sand (ML): low to medium
plasticity, brown to reddish brown, moist, hard
Increase in sand content
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, pale brown, moist, medium dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): yellowish brown,
moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand,
trace fine gravel
Slight decrease in sand size, fine to medium
grained
Silty SAND (SM): brown, moist, medium
dense, fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

6.3 14.9

9.8 BC=20
23 17
BC=11
11 13
BC=4
6 6
BC=5
6 9
BC=4
6 8
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-24

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-22
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-22
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83793°
Longitude: -119.90899°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:37 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

3.2 107.5
103.0
103.5
34 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity, red,
moist, fine sand, (Plow depth observed = 0-8
inches)
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, brown, moist, very dense, strongly
cemented
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense
Sandy SILT (ML): fine-grained, non-plastic,
pale brown, moist, very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
pale reddish brown, moist, dense
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink, moist, hard
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
yellowish brown, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
4"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

10.1 16.1

3.5 5.7

9.3 BC=33
50/2"
BC=3
3 7
BC=6
9 15
BC=10
19 28
BC=6
6 11
BC=14
30 50
Hand Auger down to 1.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-25

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-23
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-23
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83796°
Longitude: -119.90855°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Warm Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:37 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
101.3
116.5
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low plasticity, reddish brown,
low cemented, (Plow depth observed = 0-12
inches)
Sandy SILT (ML): reddish yellow to pale red
SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown, white
mottling, moist, very stiff, strongly cemented
No cementation, low plasticity, trace fine sand,
iron oxide
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, pale red, moist, loose
No silt, trace up to 3/8" subrounded to
subangular gravel, medium dense
Reddish yellow, dense
Sandy SILT (ML): olive brown, moist, hard,
fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

21.5 19.4

3.4 1.5
BC=8
12 11
BC=8
12 21
BC=4
3 4
BC=5
5 8
BC=8
15 20
BC=21
25 23
PP=4.5
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-26

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-24
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-24
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83799°
Longitude: -119.90808°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:37 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
106.9
101.9
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth
observed = 0-10 inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, reddish brown, moist, very dense
Decrease in Clay, medium dense
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, reddish yellow, moist,
dense
Decrease in Silt, medium dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): yellowish brown
to reddish yellow, moist, medium dense, fine
sand
SILT with Sand (ML): low plasticity, pinkish
brown, moist, hard, low cemented, fine sand
Non plastic
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
2"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

5.7 7.5

9.5 1.9
BC=50/2"
BC=3
20 15
13 BC=14
19 13
BC=5
7 10
BC=6
10 13
BC=12
16 25
Hand Auger down to 1.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-27

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-25
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-25
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83771°
Longitude: -119.90790°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:38 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

5.0 113.7
108.4
108.4
64 Clayey SAND (SC): fine-grained, non-plastic,
red, moist, (Plow depth observed = 0-6
inches)
Silty SAND (SM): pink to brown, moist,
dense, moderately cemented, fine sand
Sandy SILT (ML): low plasticity, yellowish
brown, moist, very stiff, weak to moderately
cemented, fine sand
Very stiff
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink & red, moist,
very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink,
moist, hard
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

23.7 9.0

9.0 BC=23
21 15
BC=8
11 17
BC=10
14 21
BC=11
17 21
BC=9
10 14
BC=11
17 27
Hand Auger down to 2.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-28

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-26
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-26
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83773°
Longitude: -119.90833°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:38 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
103.1
102.5

8.7 Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
low plasticity, reddish brown, moist, (Plow
depth observed = 0-12 inches)
SILT (ML): brown, moist, moderately to
strongly cemented
Poorly Graded SAND with Sand (SP-SM): non-plastic, brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand
Decrease in Silt content
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pale brown to
pink, moist, stiff, fine sand
Very stiff
Silty SAND (SM): pink to brown, moist,
medium dense, fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

12.7 8.1

5.5 BC=13
8 9
BC=5
8 10
BC=4
4 8
BC=8
10 1
BC=10
11 12
Hand Auger down to 2.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-29

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-27
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-27
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83773°
Longitude: -119.90885°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:38 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
115.2
108.8
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
Low to medium plasticity
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to coarse-grained, yellowish brown, moist,
medium dense
SILT (ML): non-plastic, yellowish brown,
moist, stiff, weak cemented, trace fine sand
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, pink, moist, very stiff
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine
to medium-grained, non-plastic, reddish
yellow, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
3"
6"
6"
4"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

5.6 11.7
BC=13
21 13
BC=4
6 6
BC=9
22 23
BC=4
6 8
Hand Auger down to 1.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-30

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-28
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-28
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83757°
Longitude: -119.90963°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:38 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
112.2

96.2 105.1
Silty SAND (SM): low plasticity, reddish
brown, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth observed
= 0-12 inches)
Fine to medium sand, pale brown, medium
dense
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): non-plastic, pink to brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand
6" Layer of SIlt, brown
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, pale brown,
moist, dense, fine sand
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pale brown,
moist, very stiff, fine sand
Dense
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): low to medium
plasticity, brown, moist, hard, weak to
moderately cemented, trace sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 26,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

6.8 4.3

9.8 BC=8
7 10
BC=6
6 5
BC=10
19 20
BC=10
14 11
BC=6
16 17
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-31

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-29
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-29
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83745°
Longitude: -119.90896°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/26/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:39 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/8/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
104.1

90.4 34
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-8 inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
low plasticity, red, moist
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, pink to
reddish brown, moist, hard, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
reddish yellow, moist, medium dense, fine
sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
Silty SAND (SM): yellowish brown, dense,
fine sand, poorly graded
Medium dense
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink to brown,
moist, hard
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
3"
6"
6"

10.9 10.8

9.0 1.1
BC=7
16 17
BC=4
4 7
BC=10
11 21
BC=7
9 10
BC=7
10 11
PP=4.5
Hand Auger down to 3.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-32

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-30
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-30
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83753°
Longitude: -119.90850°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:39 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

98.3 100.2
13 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-6 inches)
Decrease in Clay content
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to reddish
yellow, moist, hard, moderately to strongly
cemented, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): non-plastic,
yellowish brown, moist, loose, fine sand
Medium dense
Silty SAND (SM): reddish brown, medium
dense, fine sand
Increase in sand content
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink, moist, very
stiff, weakly cemented
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown,
moist, hard, fine sand
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 23,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
2"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
SM

8.8 17.5

2.8 BC=15
23 24
PP=>4.5
BC=3
4 5
BC=4
8 12
BC=8
10 12
BC=12
24 50/3"
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-33

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-31
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-31
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83751°
Longitude: -119.90805°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Not Available Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/23/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:39 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
119.6
113.3

6.2 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
red, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth observed =
0-6 inches)
Decrease in Clay content
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): non-plastic, red, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand, gravel (up to 3/8" subangular
subrounded)
Fine to coarse sand, loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pinkish brown, moist,
medium dense
Fine to coarse grained, brown, dense
Very dense, pink
SILT (ML): low plasticity, light pink, moist,
hard, low cemented
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

8.8 6.4

4.0 2.5
BC=12
10 9
BC=4
4 6
BC=4
5 6
BC=8
16 16
BC=17
26 27
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-34

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-32
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-32
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83728°
Longitude: -119.90788°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 300.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:39 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
105.2
25 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist, fine sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-8 inches)
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
non-plastic, red, moist, dense
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, pink to brown,
moist, hard, moderately to strongly cemented,
fine sand
Stiff
Silty SAND (SM): reddish yellow, moist,
loose, fine sand
Fine to medium grained
Sandy SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink, moist,
very stiff, low cemented, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink to brown, moist,
medium dense
Fine sand, dense
SILT (ML): low plasticity, pink, moist, hard
The boring was terminated at approximately

21.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 24,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

10.0 14.5

6.6 5.3
BC=24
27 24
BC=16
17 7
BC=6
6 3
BC=2
3 6
BC=7
11 13
BC=7
13 21
PP=>4.5
Hand Auger down to 1.75 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-35

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-33
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-33
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83735°
Longitude: -119.90832°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:40 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
106.8

98.2 112.4

95.3 22
76 Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): red, moist, loose,
(Plow depth observed = 0-8 inches)
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist
Decrease in sand content
Sandy SILT (ML): non-plastic, yellowish
brown, moist, hard, moderately to strongly
cemented, fine sand
SILT (ML): non-plastic, brownish gray, moist,
hard, weakly cemented
Moderately cemented, iron oxide
Silty SAND (SM): yellowish brown, moist,
dense, fine sand
SILT (ML): low plasticity, brownish gray,
moist, hard
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, pink t yellowish
brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand
Decrease in sand content, pink, very dense
SILT (ML): non-plastic, light brownish gray,
moist, hard
Silty SAND (SM): non-plastic, light gray,
moist, medium dense, fine sand
SILT with Sand (ML): light gray, moist, very
stiff, fine sand
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): medium plasticity, gray,
moist, very stiff
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

9.0 12.9

19.4 8.3

3.8 7.9
BC=32
49 50
BC=16
31 36
BC=9
16 23
BC=5
6 8
BC=17
19 50/4"
BC=10
13 19
BC=7
8 11
19 Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
5 1 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-36

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-34
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-34
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83725°
Longitude: -119.90873°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:40 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Silty CLAY (CL-ML): medium plasticity, gray,
moist, very stiff
SILT with Sand (ML): non-plastic, brownish
gray, moist, hard, weak to moderately
cemented, fine sand
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): gray to light gray,
moist, very dense, fine sand
Silty SAND (CL-ML): medium plasticity,
yellowish brown, moist, trace fine to medium
sand
Clayey SAND with Silt (SC): fine to
medium-grained, low plasticity, yellowish
brown, moist, dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

51.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with neat cement on February 25,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
BC=8
16 16
PP=3.75
BC=25
29 33
BC=12
18 18
BC=11
17 17
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
2 of 2

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-36

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-34
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-34
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83725°
Longitude: -119.90873°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/25/2021
Depth (feet)
40 45
50 55
60 65
ApproximateElevation (feet)
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:40 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
103.7

6.9 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low plasticity, reddish yellow,
moist, (Plow depth observed = 0-8 inches)
Poorly Graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC): fine
to coarse-grained, non-plastic, yellowish
brown, moist, medium dense, trace 3/8"
gravel, subrounded to subangular
Poorly Graded SAND with Gravel (SP): fine
to coarse-grained, yellowish brown to brown,
moist, loose
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, pink to brown, moist, medium
dense
Decrease in sand size, fine to medium grained
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

6.7 3.5

1.5 BC=2
10 12
BC=3
3 2
BC=5
7 10
BC=3
4 10
Hand Auger down to 1.0 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-37

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-35
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-35
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83705°
Longitude: -119.90914°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:40 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to
medium-grained, low to medium plasticity,
reddish brown, moist, (Plow depth observed =
0-12 inches)
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity,
reddish yellow, moist, weak to moderately
cemented, fine to medium sand
Clayey SAND (SC): fine to medium-grained,
low plasticity, reddish yellow, moist, medium
dense, weakly cemented, trace 3/8" gravel
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
coarse-grained, reddish brown, moist, loose,
trace 3/8" subrounded gravel
Pink to brown, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
BC=9
7 8
BC=4
2 4
BC=7
7 9
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-38

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-36
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-36
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.23702°
Longitude: -119.90781°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 301.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
300
295
290
285
280
275
270
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:40 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type

99.3 Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine sand, (Plow depth
observed = 0-12 inches)
Increase in sand content
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM):
fine-grained, yellowish brown, moist, medium
dense
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink, moist, medium dense
Silty SAND (SM): fine-grained, reddish
yellow, moist, medium dense
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

10.8 10.3

4.3 1.8
BC=6
10 9
BC=6
9 11
BC=4
5 8
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-39

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-37
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-37
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83765°
Longitude: -119.90779°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
119.7
101.2
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, red, moist, fine to medium sand,
(Plow depth observed = 0-8 inches)
Decrease in sand content (metal formate)
SILT with Sand (ML): low plasticity, pink,
moist, hard, moderately cemented
Weak cementation, fine sand, medium stiff
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to
medium-grained, pink, moist, medium stiff
The boring was terminated at approximately

11.5 ft. below ground surface. The boring was
backfilled with auger cuttings on February 22,
2021.
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"
6"

5.6 10.5

1.9 BC=19
25 25
PP=>4.5
BC=3
4 4
BC=5
8 10
Hand Auger down to 2.5 feet
Switched to Hollow Stem Auger
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-40

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
BORING LOG KB-38
PAGE:

BORING LOG KB-38
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83864°
Longitude: -119.90785°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Grassy field
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Clear Exploration Diameter:

Hammer Type - Drop: 140 lb. Auto - 30 in.

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees HA/HSA
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
2/22/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 20
25 30
ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
275
270
265
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): reddish brown,
moist
Silty SAND (SM): reddish brown, moist,
medium dense, fine to medium-grained
Sandy SILT (ML): brownish gray, moist, very
stiff, Moderately Cemented
The percolation test hole was terminated at
approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The
percolation test hole was backfilled with auger
cuttings on March 02, 2021.

BC=12 12"
16 9
2" perforated PVC pipe installed
in hole surrounded by gravel.

Hole presoaked on 3/1, test
completed on 3/2
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-41

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-1
PAGE:

PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.84003°
Longitude: -119.90856°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 294.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Cool Exploration Diameter:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
3/01/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
INF-1
DRAWN BY: SD
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 12:18 PM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/2/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity,
reddish brown, moist
Silty SAND (SM): reddish brown, moist, fine
to medium-grained
The percolation test hole was terminated at
approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The
percolation test hole was backfilled with auger
cuttings on March 02, 2021.

BC=3 12"
2 5
2" perforated PVC pipe installed
in hole surrounded by gravel.

Hole presoaked on 3/1, test
completed on 3/2
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-42

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-2
PAGE:

PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-2
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83927°
Longitude: -119.90917°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Cool Exploration Diameter:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
3/01/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
INF-2
DRAWN BY: SD
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 12:18 PM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/2/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity,
reddish brown, moist
Silty SAND (SM): reddish brown, moist,
medium dense, fine to medium-grained
The percolation test hole was terminated at
approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The
percolation test hole was backfilled with auger
cuttings on March 02, 2021.

BC=12 12"
7 7
2" perforated PVC pipe installed
in hole surrounded by gravel.

Hole presoaked on 3/1, test
completed on 3/2
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-43

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-3
PAGE:

PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-3
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83808°
Longitude: -119.91016°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Cool Exploration Diameter:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
3/01/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
INF-3
DRAWN BY: SD
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 12:18 PM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/2/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium
plasticity, reddish brown, moist
Silty SAND (SM): brown, moist, medium
dense, fine to medium-grained
The percolation test hole was terminated at
approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The
percolation test hole was backfilled with auger
cuttings on March 02, 2021.

BC=5
12 12
2" perforated PVC pipe installed
in hole surrounded by gravel.

Hole presoaked on 3/1, test
completed on 3/2
Groundwater was not observed during drilling or after
completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-44

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-4
PAGE:

PERCOLATION TEST HOLE LOG INF-4
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83711°
Longitude: -119.90929°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Drilling Company: Moore Twining
Drilling Method:

Drilling Equipment:

Sunny/Cool Exploration Diameter:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Drill Crew:

Hammer Efficiency: 88%
Hammer Cal. Date:

CME-75
6 in. O.D.

SD
Plunge: -90 degrees Hollow Stem Auger
5/01/2020
James/Yvan
3/01/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberBlow Counts(BC)= Uncorr. Blows/6 in.Pocket Pen(PP)= tsfRecovery(NR=No Recovery)USCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
INF-4
DRAWN BY: SD
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 12:18 PM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 3/2/2021
CHECKED BY: DD Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine to coarse-grained sand,
reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 16 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): reddish brown, strongly cemented, hard pan The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 3.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-45

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 1
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 1
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83963°
Longitude: -119.90856°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
10'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2

DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low to medium plasticity, reddish brown, moist, Observed Plow Depth 7 inches deep
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine to coarse-grained sand, yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse gravel
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine to coarse-grained sand, reddish brown, moist, trace cementation
grades to medium to coarse sand
The test pit was terminated because of caving at approximately 9 ft. below ground
surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

R-Value= 75
Corrosion
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-46

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 2
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 2
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83896°
Longitude: -119.91019°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 294.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
9'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
275
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low to medium plasticity, reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 12 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained, reddish brown, moderate to strong cementation
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, yellowish brown with light brownish gray
The test pit was terminated at approximately 10 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-47

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 3
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 3
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83879°
Longitude: -119.90825°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 297.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
16'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity, reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 12 inches deep
Sandy SILT (ML): fine to coarse-grained sand, reddish brown moderately cemented
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, yellowish brown The test pit was terminated at approximately 10 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Proctor - ASTM D1557 Method
A=
Max. Dry Unit Wt.: 128.5 pcf
Opt. Water Content: 8.2%
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-48

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 4
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 4
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83824°
Longitude: -119.90981°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 295.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
14'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 12 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): fine to coarse-grained sand, yellowish brown, moderate to strong cementation
light gray with reddish brown intermixed
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, light gray
Sandy SILT (ML): fine-grained sand, non-plastic, light brownish gray
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, yellowish brown and light gray intermixed
The test pit was terminated at approximately 10 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-49

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 5
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 5
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83831°
Longitude: -119.90827°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 296.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
14'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity, reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 12 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): fine to coarse gained sand, light grayish brown
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, yellowish brown and light gray
The test pit was terminated at approximately 9.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Corrosion
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-50

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 6
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 6
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83782°
Longitude: -119.90804°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:42 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): dark brown, Observed Plow Depth 15 inches deep
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine-grained sand, dark brown, moderately cemented
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, yellowish brown fine-grained sand, light gray, some moderate cementation The test pit was terminated at approximately 10 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

R-Value= 75
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-51

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 7
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 7
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83755°
Longitude: -119.90900°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 298.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
14'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:42 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 6 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained sand, light gray, weak cementation
Poorly Graded SAND (SP): fine-grained sand, light gray, some moderate cementation, hard pan
yellowish brown
The test pit was terminated at approximately 10 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-52

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 8
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 8
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83742°
Longitude: -119.90874°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
13'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:42 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): low plasticity, reddish brown, Observed Plow Depth 16 inches deep
Sandy SILT (ML): reddish brown, moderate to strong
cementation
fine-grained sand, light gray, moderatly cemented
fine to medium-grained sand, reddish brown
fine to coarse-grained sand, grades to poorly graded sand The test pit was terminated at approximately 10.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Proctor - ASTM D1557 Method
A=
Max. Dry Unit Wt.: 133.8 pcf
Opt. Water Content: 7.2%
Corrosion
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-53

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP- 9
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP- 9
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83726°
Longitude: -119.90824°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 300.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
13'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:42 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): low plasticity, reddish brown, dry, Observed Plow Depth 16 inches deep
Silty SAND (SM): fine to coarse-grained, reddish brown, moist, weak to moderate cementation
moderate cementation intermixed
light gray, moderate to strong cementation
The test pit was terminated at approximately 9.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on January 19, 2021.

Corrosion
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

The exploration location and elevation are approximate and were estimated by Kleinfelder.

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE
A-54

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-10
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-10
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: 36.83721°
Longitude: -119.90966°
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (ft.): 299.00
Surface Condition: Bare Earth
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Sunny/Cool
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
13'x 2' ft
SL
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
1/19/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 ApproximateElevation (feet)
295
290
285
280
Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 04/02/2021 11:41 AM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 2/16/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): fine to medium-grained sand, brown, moderately cemented, plowed zone 0-10"
SILT with Sand (ML): dark grayish brown, strongly cemented, Hard Pan

2.8 13.3 NP NP
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-11
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-11
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-55
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 5.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Sandy Lean CLAY: fine-grained sand, brown, moist, plowed zone 0-9"
increase in sand content reddish brown
strongly cemented
Hard Pan

3.1 23.7
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-12
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-12
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-56
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 4.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Sandy SILT (ML): fine-grained sand, brown, weakly cemented, plowed zone 0-9"
SILT with Sand (ML): dark grayish brown, Hard Pan

3.2 Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-13
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-13
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
10'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-57
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Silty SAND (CL): fine to medium-grained sand, brown, plowed zone 0-8"
Silty SAND (SM): strongly cemented, Hard Pan

2.9 Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-14
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-14
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-58
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 4 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Sandy Lean CLAY (CL): yellowish brown, moist, plowed zone 0-12"
SILT with Sand (ML): grayish brown to yellowish brown, moist, Hard Pan
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): fine to medium-grained sand, reddish brown, moist

2.6 17 2
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-15
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-15
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-59
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 5.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained sand, brown, moist, plowed zone 0 to 11"
Sandy SILT (ML): reddish brown to brown, Hard Pan
Lean CLAY with Sand (CL): fine-grained sand, medium
plasticity, trace sand

3.8 4.6
19 2
Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-16
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-16
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-60
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 5.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained sand, brown pale, moist, plowed zone 0 to 10"
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM): moist

2.0 Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-17
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-17
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
11'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-61
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Silty SAND (SM): fine to medium-grained sand, brown, moist, plowed zone 0 to 11"
Silty SAND (SM): olive brown, moist

3.8 Groundwater was not observed during excavation or after completion.

GENERAL NOTES:

GROUNDWATER LEVEL INFORMATION:
1 of 1

FIELD EXPLORATION
FIGURE

LABORATORY RESULTS
Lithologic Description
TEST PIT LOG TP-18
PAGE:

TEST PIT LOG TP-18
Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Passing #4 (%)Passing #200 (%)
Latitude: °
Longitude: °
Surface Condition: Grass & Weeds
Not Available
Excavation Company: Landscape Services
Excavation Equip.:

Clear/Sunny
Excav. Dimensions:

Logged By:

Date Begin - End:

Hor.-Vert. Datum:

Weather:

Excavation Crew:

CAT 420E
12'x 2' ft
SD
Plunge: N/A degrees
Dan
4/24/2021
Depth (feet)
5 10
15 Graphical LogSampleNumberUSCSSymbolWaterContent (%)Liquid LimitPlasticity Index(NP=NonPlastic)Additional Tests/Remarks

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
1 2
3 DRAWN BY: JDS
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 11:23 AM BY: JSala
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_BORING/TEST PIT SOIL LOG] DATE: 5/7/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
Sample Type
A-62
The test pit was terminated because of backhoe refusal ( ) at approximately 4.5 ft. below ground surface. The test pit was backfilled with excavated material on April 24, 2021.

Appendix B
20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 B-1 of 2 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

GENERAL
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils that may affect foundation design and construction procedures. Laboratory testing was performed by Kleinfelder’s in house laboratory. Corrosivity testing was performed by Sunland Analytical and Topsoil analytical testing was performed by Waypoint Analytical. The tests were performed in general conformance with the current ASTM or Caltrans standards. A description of the laboratory-testing program is presented below.

MOISTURE AND UNIT WEIGHT
Moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on selected samples recovered from the borings. Moisture contents were determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216; dry unit weight was calculated using the entire weight of the samples collected in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 7263. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs and attached to this appendix.

WASH SIEVE
Selected soil samples were tested for the percent passing the No. 200 sieve, which was performed by wash sieving in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1140. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs and attached to this appendix.

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Atterberg limits testing was performed on a selected soil samples to assist in classification. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs and attached to this appendix.

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Select drive samples were tested for their relative compressive strength in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D 2166. Results are presented as an attachment to this appendix. 20212905.001A/SJO21R125978 B-2 of 2 May 20, 2021
© 2021 Kleinfelder

MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Maximum density and optimum moisture content testing was performed on one bulk sample of the near surface soils to evaluate the compaction characteristics of the onsite soils. Maximum density and optimum moisture content testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D1557, Method B. The test result is attached.

DIRECT SHEAR
Select drive samples were tested for direct shear in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D 3080. Results are presented as an attachment to this appendix.

R-VALUE
Resistance value (R-value) tests were performed on selected bulk soil samples obtained to evaluate pavement support characteristics of the near-surface onsite soils. R-value tests were performed in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D2844. The test results are attached to this appendix.

SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTS
A series of chemical tests were performed on a selected sample of the near-surface soils to estimate pH, resistivity and sulfate and chloride contents. Test results may be used by a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction materials. The tests were performed by Sunland Analytical of Sacramento, CA. The results of the tests are presented in Table 4 of Section 4.9 of the report and attached to this appendix.

TOPSOIL ANALYTICAL TESTS
Topsoil analytical testing was performed on one composite sample of the near-surface soils by Waypoint Analytical of Anaheim, California. The composite topsoil sample was tested for percentages of organic matter, percentages of deleterious material, pH, mineral content, micro and macro nutrient content, and herbicide presence in the soil. Eight discrete topsoil samples were tested for organic contents. The test results are presented in the Waypoint Analytical report attached to this appendix.

KB-1 3.0 28.9
KB-1 11.0 S6 12.9 99.6
KB-2 3.0 28.1 71
KB-2 5.0 10.1
KB-2 6.0 S4
KB-2 7.5 2.1
KB-2 11.0 S6 10.9 102.2
KB-3 2.0 S3 6.6
KB-3 7.5 10.7
KB-3 11.0 S7 3.8 104.2
KB-4 0.5 S2 8.4
KB-4 2.0 S3 5.6
KB-4 5.0 10.0
KB-4 8.5 S6 2.6 98.2
KB-4 10.0 3.8
KB-5 3.0 21.0
KB-5 6.0 S4 15.0 110.0
KB-5 8.5 S5 11.1 106.8
KB-5 11.0 S6 11.3 98.1
KB-5 12.5 10.0
KB-5 16.0 S8 6.3 101.3
KB-5 21.0 S10 10.4 114.3
KB-6 0.5 S2 10.4
KB-6 2.0 31.8
KB-6 6.0 S4 5.0 111.8 NP NP NP
KB-6 8.5 S5 6.2 108.5
KB-6 16.0 S8 8.7 98.9
KB-7 0.5 S2 10.5
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-1
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 03/12/2021 02:46 PM BY: DDockendorf

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
S3 BROWN SILT (ML) S7 REDDISH BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) 15.6 99.2 KB-7 3.0 27.5 NP NP NP
KB-7 6.0 S4 10.7 109.3
KB-7 18.5 S9 11.7 120.2
KB-8 6.0 S4 11.9 101.1
KB-8 11.0 S6 6.2 108.5
KB-8 12.5 73
KB-8 21.0 S10 9.0 102.8
KB-8 22.5 82
KB-9 0.5 S2 9.5
KB-9 2.0 S3 11.1
KB-9 8.5 S5 11.9 100.8
KB-9 11.0 S6 11.2 100.8
KB-9 15.0 11.1
KB-9 21.0 S8 6.9 112.0
KB-9 25.0 2.6 3.1
KB-10 2.0 S3 11.3
KB-10 6.0 S4 26 21 5
KB-10 8.5 S5 1.4 102.2
KB-10 11.0 S6 1.1 97.1
KB-10 15.0 18.3
KB-11 2.0 S3 9.7
KB-11 6.0 S4 11.0 100.5
KB-11 8.5 S5 10.9 99.4
KB-11 11.0 S6 5.7 106.1
KB-11 15.0 9.1
KB-12 0.0 S1 9.0
KB-12 4.0 S2 4.7 107.1
KB-12 8.5 S4 9.5 94.0
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-2
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 03/12/2021 02:46 PM BY: DDockendorf

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
S3S7 REDDISH YELLOW SILT WITH SAND (ML) S11 BROWN SILT WITH SAND (ML) S9 BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 47 16.5 100.6 KB-12 10.0 21.5
KB-13 2.0 S3 3.9
KB-13 6.0 S4 6.2 105.6
KB-13 7.5 17.1
KB-14 1.5 S3 8.9
KB-14 7.5 5.0
KB-15 0.5 S2 9.5
KB-15 3.0 13.9
KB-15 6.0 S4 13.2 104.4
KB-15 8.5 S5 94.5
KB-15 10.0 16.0
KB-15 16.0 S7 2.2 109.1
KB-16 0.5 S2 8.9
KB-16 2.0 S3 18.5
KB-16 6.0 S4 10.4 118.1
KB-16 8.5 S5 106.2
KB-17 0.5 S2 10.1 17 11 6
KB-17 3.0 S3 9.3
KB-17 6.0 S4 21.1 102.1
KB-17 7.5 6.3
KB-17 11.0 S6 3.1 110.7
KB-18 2.0 6.9
KB-18 5.0 32.6
KB-18 8.5 S6 6.6 102.3
KB-18 16.0 S8 2.6 112.8
KB-19 0.5 S2 8.1
KB-19 3.0 22.1
KB-19 6.0 S4 23.5
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-3
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 03/12/2021 02:46 PM BY: DDockendorf

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
REDDISH BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 11.2 7.7 NP NP NP
KB-20 2.0 21.0
KB-20 6.0 S4 17.5 103.3
KB-20 8.5 S5 1.7 103.0
KB-20 11.0 S6 1.1 101.0
KB-21 0.0 S1 9.9
KB-21 3.0 27
KB-21 6.0 S3 4.3 121.4
KB-21 11.0 S5 2.3 106.5
KB-22 2.0 S3 6.3
KB-22 6.0 S4 14.9 105.6
KB-22 8.5 S5 9.8 109.3
KB-22 11.0 S6 2.9
KB-23 0.5 S2 10.1
KB-23 2.0 16.1
KB-23 6.0 S4 3.5 107.5
KB-23 8.5 S5 5.7 103.0
KB-23 11.0 S6 9.3 103.5
KB-23 15.0 34
KB-24 1.5 21.5
KB-24 6.0 S5 19.4 101.3
KB-24 7.5 3.4
KB-24 11.0 S7 1.5 116.5
KB-25 2.0
KB-25 5.0 5.7
KB-25 8.5 S5 7.5 106.9
KB-25 10.0 9.5
KB-25 16.0 S7 1.9 101.9
KB-26 3.0 S3 23.7
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-4
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 03/12/2021 02:46 PM BY: DDockendorf

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
S2 REDDISH YELLOW CLAYEY SAND (SC) YELLOWISH BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) S7 YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) 3.2 96.4 5.0 113.7 KB-26 6.0 S4 9.0 108.4 64
KB-26 8.5 S5 9.0 108.4
KB-27 2.0 S3 12.7
KB-27 6.0 S4 8.1 103.1
KB-27 7.5 8.7
KB-27 8.5 S5 5.5 102.5
KB-28 4.0 5.6 115.2
KB-28 8.5 S5 11.7 108.8
KB-29 6.0 S4 6.8 112.2
KB-29 8.5 S5 4.3 96.2
KB-29 11.0 S6 9.8 105.1
KB-30 0.5 S2 10.9
KB-30 2.5 10.8 34
KB-30 6.0 S4 9.0 104.1
KB-30 8.5 S5 1.1 90.4
KB-31 2.0 S3 8.8
KB-31 6.0 S4 17.5 98.3
KB-31 7.5 13
KB-31 11.0 S6 2.8 100.2
KB-32 0.5 S2 8.8
KB-32 2.0 S3 6.4
KB-32 4.0 4.0 119.6
KB-32 8.5 S5 2.5 113.3
KB-32 11.0 S6 6.2
KB-33 0.5 S2 10.0
KB-33 4.0 14.5
KB-33 8.5 S5 6.6 105.2
KB-33 11.0 S6 25 Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-5
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 03/12/2021 02:46 PM BY: DDockendorf

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) S5 BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) S3 REDDISH BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC) S5 BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) REDDISH YELLOW SILTY SAND (SM) KB-33 16.0 S8 5.3
KB-34 2.0 S3 9.0 19 14 5
KB-34 6.0 S4 12.9 106.8
KB-34 8.5 S5 19.4 98.2
KB-34 11.0 S6 8.3 112.4
KB-34 15.0 22
KB-34 26.0 S10 3.8 95.3
KB-34 31.0 S11 7.9 76
KB-35 0.5 S2 6.7
KB-35 5.0 3.5 6.9
KB-35 8.5 S5 1.5 103.7
KB-37 0.5 S2 10.8
KB-37 2.0 S3 10.3
KB-37 5.0 4.3
KB-37 8.5 S5 1.8 99.3
KB-38 6.0 S4 5.6 119.7
KB-38 7.5 10.5
KB-38 11.0 S6 1.9 101.2
TP-10 5.0 Corrosion
TP-11 0.0 1 2.8
TP-11 4.0 3 13.3 NP NP NP
TP-12 0.0 1 3.1
TP-12 3.0 3 23.7
TP-13 0.0 1 3.2
TP-14 0.0 1 2.9
TP-15 0.0 1 2.6 17 15 2
TP-16 0.0 1 3.8 19 17 2
TP-16 4.0 3 4.6
Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-6
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 09:45 AM BY: GGomez

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
BROWNINSH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) S7 LIGHT GRAY SILTY SAND (SM) LIGHT GRAY SILT WITH SAND (ML) S4S4S52

BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) BROWN SILT WITH SAND (ML) YELLOWISH BROWN SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) TP-17 0.0 1 2.0
TP-18 0.0 1 3.8
TP- 2 0.0 1 R-Value= 75
TP- 2 4.5 Corrosion
TP- 4 0.0 1 Proctor - ASTM D1557 Method A=
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 128.5 pcf
Optimum Water Content: 8.2%
TP- 6 5.0 Corrosion
TP- 7 0.0 1 R-Value= 75
TP- 9 0.0 1 Proctor - ASTM D1557 Method A=
Maximum Dry Unit Weight: 133.8 pcf
Optimum Water Content: 7.2%
TP- 9 5.0 Corrosion Passing 3/4"
Sieve Analysis (%) Passing #4 Passing #200
B-7
FIGURE
Plasticity Index
Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit
Sample Description
Water Content (%)Dry Unit Wt. (pcf)Plastic Limit
Exploration
ID Additional Tests
Refer to the Geotechnical Evaluation Report or the
supplemental plates for the method used for the testing performed above.

NP = NonPlastic
NA = Not Available

LABORATORY TEST

RESULT SUMMARY
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSE gINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [__KLF_LAB SUMMARY TABLE - SOIL] PLOTTED: 05/13/2021 09:45 AM BY: GGomez

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
PROJECT NO.:

DATE: 2/10/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: JDS
20212905.001A
2 2
2 BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) REDDISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) DARK BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM) REDDISH BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

ATTERBERG LIMITS

LL PL PI Passing
#200
BExploration ID Depth (ft.)
16 NP
NP
21 11
14 NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
S4
S4
S2
S3
6 3
6 0.5
2 CL-ML

LIQUID LIMIT (LL)

PLASTICITY INDEX (PI)
CL or OL
"U" LINE
ML or OL 4
7 MH or OH
"A" LINE
CH or OH
Sample Number Sample Description
KB-6
KB-7
KB-10
KB-17
KB-34
NP
NP
26 17
19 NP
NP
5 6
5 FIGURE
Testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318.

NP = Nonplastic
NA = Not Available
NM = Not Measured

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RIVERSIDE DR.

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
Chart Reference: ASTM D2487
PLOTTED: 03/22/2021 04:46 PM BY: DDockendorf
gINT FILE: Klf_gint_master_2021 PROJECT NUMBER: 20212905.001A OFFICE FILTER: SAN JOSEgINT TEMPLATE: E:KLF_STANDARD_GINT_LIBRARY_2021.GLB [_KLF_ATTERBERG (ASTM)] DATE: 3/9/2021
CHECKED BY: DD
DRAWN BY: GG
PROJECT NO.:
20212905.001A
For classification of fine-grained soils
and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained
soils.
8 S3 YELLOWISH BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) REDDISH BROWN SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) BROWNISH GRAY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML) 1 2

3.8 3.3
104.6 106.4

0.611 0.584

16.9 15.2

2.42 2.42

0.96 0.96

20.5 21.4
112.2 111.3

0.491 0.506
Diameter, in 2.42 2.42

0.89 0.91
Maximum Shear Stress, tsf 0.59 0.92
Residual Shear Stress, tsf na na
Hoizontal Displacment, in. 0.140 0.140
Normal Stress, tsf 0.50 1.00
Strain Rate, in./min. 0.005 0.005
LL: nm PL: nm PI: nm GS: 2.70 Assumed c, tsf
Test Conditions: Undisturbed / Inundated Failure 0.3
Specimen 1: Light Brownish Gray Sandy Silt Residual na
Specimen 2: Light Brownish Gray Sandy Silt
Specimen 3: Light Brownish Gray Sandy Silt
Remarks: nm = not measured, na = not applicable
PROJECT NO.: 20212905
ENTRY BY: A. Catanuso
CHECKED BY:

Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Void Ratio
Saturation, %
Diameter, in
Height, in
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Void Ratio

1.57 8
Test Date: 3/5/21
Boring:

Sample:

Depth, ft:

PAGE: 1 of 1

33.1 na
The determination of strength envelopes and the development of relationships to aid in interpreting and evaluating test results are beyond the scope of this test method. The user of this report retains the sole responsibility to evaluate and approve any interpreted values from the testing.
9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827
DATE: 3/8/21
Vertical Deformation (in.) Shear Stress (tsf)
Shear Stress, tsf
Normal Stress, tsf
na

0.120

2.00 0.005
φ, deg.

3.5 105.7

0.595
Horizontal Displacement (in.)
Specimen Number Initial

0.500

2.42 0.90

15.7 2.42

0.96 20.4
112.5
S4
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
KB-8
Tan φ

0.65 DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080
na
Height, in
At Test
FIGURE
3 4
-0.0200
-0.0150
-0.0100
-0.0050

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
S1
S2
S3

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400
S1
S2
S3

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Shear
Residual
Trend
Trend2

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RVIERSIDE DR
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722 B-9
1 Diameter, in DO 2.40
Height, in HO 5.29
Height to Diameter Ratio 2.21
Water Content, % ωO 9.6
Dry Density, lbs/ft3 γ
do 93.1
Saturation, % SO 32.0
Void Ratio eO 0.810
Time to Failure, min. tf 5.8
Unconfined Compressive Strength, psi qu 5.18
Shear Strength, psi su 2.59
Strain at Failure, % εf 5.7
Average Rate of Strain to Failure, %/min ε 1.0
Description of Specimen: Light Brownish Gray SILT
Amount of Material Finer than the No. 200, %: nm
LL: nm PL: nm PI: nm GS: 2.70 Assumed Intact Test Method: ASTM D2166 Remarks: nm= not measured, na = not applicable
PROJECT NO.: 20212905
ENTRY BY: A Catanuso
Logo Here CHECKED BY: J. Slinkard
Boring: KB-8
Sample: S8
Depth, ft: 16.0
Test Date: 3/11/21
9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827
DATE:

PAGE: 1 of 1
3/15/2021
Unconfined Compressive Stress, psi
Axial Strain, ε1, %
Specimen Failure Picture

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
(UC)
Initial
FIGURE
Specimen Type:

Specimen No.

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 5.50

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RVIERSIDE DR
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
B-10
1 Diameter, in DO 2.41
Height, in HO 5.03
Height to Diameter Ratio 2.08
Water Content, % ωO 21.7
Dry Density, lbs/ft3 γ
do 100.8
Saturation, % SO 87.4
Void Ratio eO 0.672
Time to Failure, min. tf 5.6
Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf qu 3.66
Shear Strength, tsf su 1.83
Strain at Failure, % εf 2.8
Average Rate of Strain to Failure, %/min ε 0.5
Description of Specimen: Light Brownish Gray SILT
Amount of Material Finer than the No. 200, %: nm
LL: nm PL: nm PI: nm GS: 2.70 Assumed Intact Test Method: ASTM D2166 Remarks: nm= not measured, na = not applicable
PROJECT NO.: 20212905
ENTRY BY: A Catanuso
Logo Here CHECKED BY: J. Slinkard
Boring:

Sample: S7
Depth, ft: 13.5
Test Date: 3/11/21
9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827
DATE:

PAGE: 1 of 1
3/15/2021
Unconfined Compressive Stress, tsf
Axial Strain, ε1, %
Specimen Failure Picture

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
(UC)
Initial
FIGURE
Specimen Type:

Specimen No.

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0

COSTCO FRESNO NEW WAREHOUSE
NEC OF W. HERNDON AVE. &
N. RVIERSIDE DR
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93722
B-11
KB-7
Laboratory Test Report
Client:

Project:
01-000L - Lab Testing
CSM Costco Fresno, CA New Whse/Gas GEO
20212905.001A
Report No.:

Sampled by:

Submitted by:

Date: 1/19/2021
Adam Wohletz Date: 1/25/2021
Costco Wholesale 21-SAC-00138 Rev. 0 Issued: 2/8/2021
Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder.

Reviewed on 2/8/2021 by Jarod Slinkard,
Lab Supervisor
Kleinfelder Sacramento Lab | 9969 Horn Road | Sacramento, CA 95827 | (916) 366-1701 Page 1 of 4 Laboratory Test Report
Client:

Project:
01-000L - Lab Testing
CSM Costco Fresno, CA New Whse/Gas GEO
20212905.001A
Report No.:

Sampled by:

Submitted by:

Date: 1/19/2021
Adam Wohletz Date: 1/25/2021
Costco Wholesale 21-SAC-00138 Rev. 0 Issued: 2/8/2021
Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder.

Reviewed on 2/8/2021 by Jarod Slinkard,
Lab Supervisor
Kleinfelder Sacramento Lab | 9969 Horn Road | Sacramento, CA 95827 | (916) 366-1701 Page 2 of 4 Laboratory Test Report
Client:

Project:
01-000L - Lab Testing
CSM Costco Fresno, CA New Whse/Gas GEO
20212905.001A
Report No.:

Sampled by:

Submitted by:

Date: 1/19/2021
Adam Wohletz Date: 1/25/2021
Costco Wholesale 21-SAC-00138 Rev. 0 Issued: 2/8/2021
Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder.

Reviewed on 2/8/2021 by Jarod Slinkard,
Lab Supervisor
Kleinfelder Sacramento Lab | 9969 Horn Road | Sacramento, CA 95827 | (916) 366-1701 Page 3 of 4 Laboratory Test Report
Client:

Project:
01-000L - Lab Testing
CSM Costco Fresno, CA New Whse/Gas GEO
20212905.001A
Report No.:

Sampled by:

Submitted by:

Date: 1/19/2021
Adam Wohletz Date: 1/25/2021
Costco Wholesale 21-SAC-00138 Rev. 0 Issued: 2/8/2021
Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder.

Reviewed on 2/8/2021 by Jarod Slinkard,
Lab Supervisor
Kleinfelder Sacramento Lab | 9969 Horn Road | Sacramento, CA 95827 | (916) 366-1701 Page 4 of 4 Project Name:

Project No.:

Lab No.: 21
Boring No. / Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Depth, ft.:

Material Description:

Report Date:
3 Inch 100 0.029 38.0
2-1/2 Inch 100 0.019 32.6
2 Inch 100 0.012 27.2
1-1/2 Inch 100 0.008 22.6
1 Inch 100 0.006 19.9
3/4 Inch 100 0.003 15.4
1/2 Inch 100 0.001 12.7
3/8 Inch 100
No. 4 100 Specific Gravity: 2.7
No. 10 90 Assumed
No. 20 88
No. 40 80
No. 60 73
No. 140 59
No. 200 53.2
Reviewed By: J. Slinkard
KLEINFELDER 9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 366-1701 Laboratory Test Report
March 17, 2021
Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422)
20212905
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Particle Diameter,
mm Percent Passing
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
INF-1
21-SAC-00367

3.5 US Standard Sieve
Size Percent Passing
Brownish Gray Sandy Silt
Limitations:

Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

Project Name:

Project No.:

Lab No.: 21-SAC-00367
Boring No. / Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Depth, ft.:

Material Description:

Report Date:
3 Inch 100 0.031 25.0
2-1/2 Inch 100 0.021 19.2
2 Inch 100 0.012 14.4
1-1/2 Inch 100 0.009 11.5
1 Inch 100 0.006 9.6
3/4 Inch 100 0.003 7.7
1/2 Inch 100 0.001 5.8
3/8 Inch 100
No. 4 100 Specific Gravity: 2.7
No. 10 96 Assumed
No. 20 88
No. 40 68
No. 60 53
No. 140 41
No. 200 37.2
Reviewed By: J. Slinkard
KLEINFELDER 9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 366-1701 Laboratory Test Report
March 17, 2021
Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422)
20212905
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Particle Diameter,
mm Percent Passing
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
INF-2
S1

3.5 US Standard Sieve
Size Percent Passing
Brown Silty SAND
Limitations:

Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

Project Name:

Project No.:

Lab No.: 21-SAC-00367
Boring No. / Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Depth, ft.:

Material Description:

Report Date:
3 Inch 100 0.033 15.5
2-1/2 Inch 100 0.022 11.6
2 Inch 100 0.013 7.8
1-1/2 Inch 100 0.009 6.8
1 Inch 100 0.006 5.8
3/4 Inch 100 0.003 3.9
1/2 Inch 100 0.001 2.9
3/8 Inch 100
No. 4 100 Specific Gravity: 2.7
No. 10 98 Assumed
No. 20 90
No. 40 71
No. 60 59
No. 140 43
No. 200 34.2
Reviewed By:

KLEINFELDER 9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 366-1701 Laboratory Test Report
March 17, 2021
Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422)
20212905
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Particle Diameter,
mm Percent Passing
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
INF-3
S1

3.5 US Standard Sieve
Size Percent Passing
Brown Silty SAND
Limitations:

Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

Project Name:

Project No.:

Lab No.: 21-SAC-00367
Boring No. / Location:

Sample ID:

Sample Depth, ft.:

Material Description:

Report Date:
3 Inch 100 0.034 14.6
2-1/2 Inch 100 0.022 10.7
2 Inch 100 0.013 7.8
1-1/2 Inch 100 0.009 6.8
1 Inch 100 0.006 5.8
3/4 Inch 100 0.003 4.9
1/2 Inch 100 0.001 3.9
3/8 Inch 100
No. 4 100 Specific Gravity: 2.7
No. 10 98 Assumed
No. 20 90
No. 40 72
No. 60 58
No. 140 40
No. 200 31.9
Reviewed By: J. Slinkard
KLEINFELDER 9969 Horn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 366-1701 Laboratory Test Report
March 17, 2021
Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422)
20211905
Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Analysis
Particle Diameter,
mm Percent Passing
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
INF-4
S1

3.5 US Standard Sieve
Size Percent Passing
Brown Silty SAND
Limitations:

Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided.

4741 East Hunter Ave., Ste. A    Anaheim CA  92807
(714) 282‐8777       (714) 282‐8575 fax
www.waypointanalytical.com
Anaheim Office
March 19, 2021
Report 21-068-0006
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose CA 95112
Attn: Dan Dockendorf
RE: Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO Fresno, CA Job #: 20212905.001A Background
One composite sample was processed on March 09, 2021 identified as soil from areas where new landscaping is scheduled for installation. Fertilizer and amendment recommendations were requested. The sample was analyzed for horticultural suitability, fertility and physical characteristics. The results of the analyses are attached. Organic matter testing was run separately on individual subsamples and these results are also attached.

Analytical Results and Comments
The reaction of the sample is slightly acidic at a pH of 6.3 with free lime favorably absent. These levels are within the range preferred for most plants. Salinity (ECe), sodium, chloride and boron are safely low. The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) indicates that sodium is adequately balanced by soluble calcium and magnesium; this balance is important for soil structure quality, which relates to the rate at which water infiltrates the soil. Extractable aluminum is low.

According to the USDA Soil Classification system, the texture of the less than 2mm fraction of the soil is classified as sandy loam. Organic matter content is low at 0.66% dry weight. Based on this information the estimated infiltration rate is moderate at 0.35 inch per hour. Infiltration rates may vary due to differences in compaction across the site.

In terms of soil fertility, phosphorus is low and nitrogen is slightly below optimum. All of the other major nutrients are sufficient for proper plant nutrition at this time. Of the micronutrients; manganese is sufficient.

Copper, zinc and iron are low.

Recommendations
Incorporation of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer is recommended at the time of planting. Incorporation of a nitrogen stabilized organic amendment or composted greenwaste product is recommended in order to improve soil nutrient holding capacity and porosity. If a composted greenwaste amendment is chosen, that would provide additional phosphorus and potassium as well as supplemental micronutrients, product depending.

The primary symptom of zinc and iron deficiencies is a general yellowing of leaves with veins remaining green. In severe cases, leaves may become pale yellow or whitish, but veins remain green. Brown spots may develop between veins and leaf margins may turn brown. Zinc deficiencies typically appear first on older, interior leaves. Iron deficiency shows first and more severely on the newer growth at branch tips. If these symptoms are present after plant installation they may be treated with an application of a chelated

Page 1 of 20 ends

Anaheim Office
Report 21-068-0006
4741 East Hunter Ave., Ste. A    Anaheim CA  92807
(714) 282‐8777       (714) 282‐8575 fax
www.waypointanalytical.com
micronutrient product at the manufacturer’s recommended rate. Incorporation of a composted greenwaste amendment would also provide additional micronutrients and may be sufficient to negate any deficiency, product depending.

Boron is safely low for general ornamental plants and may be below optimum levels for plant nutritional purposes. Irrigation water often supplies sufficient boron to meet plant nutritional requirements. However, if boron is low in the irrigation water and/or plants show symptoms of boron deficiency after they are well established, you may consider an application of a product containing boron at the manufacturer’s label rate. Boron deficiency symptoms often include stunted or deformed younger growth and tight internodes.

Tissue testing can be performed to identify a boron deficiency if it is suspected. Incorporation of a composted greenwaste amendment may be sufficient to negate this deficiency, product depending.

To Prepare for Mass Planting:

Drainage of the root zone should be improved by first loosening the top 10 inches of any undisturbed or compacted soil. The following materials should then be evenly spread and thoroughly blended with the top 6 inches of soil to form a homogenous layer:

Amount per 1000 Square Feet
5 cubic yards Nitrogen Stabilized Organic Amendment*
9 pounds Ammonium Phosphate (16-20-0)*
*The rate may change based on the analysis of the chosen organic amendment. This rate is based on 270 lbs. of dry weight of organic matter per cubic yard of amendment. If a composted greenwaste amendment is chosen that provides a substantial amount of phosphorus, the ammonium phosphate should be replaced with ammonium sulfate (21-0-0) at a 7 pound rate.

To Prepare Backfill For Trees and Shrubs:
• Excavate planting pits at least twice as wide as the diameter of the rootball. • Soil immediately below the rootball should be left undisturbed to provide support but the sides and the bottom around the side should be cultivated to improve porosity. • The top of the rootball should be at or slightly above final grade. • The top 12 inches of backfill around the sides of the rootball of trees and shrubs may consist of the above amended soil or may be prepared as follows:
3 parts Site Soil
1 part Nitrogen Stabilized Organic Amendment*
Uniformly blended with:

Amount / Cubic Yard of Backfill
1/2 pound Ammonium Phosphate (16-20-0)*
*The rate may change based on the analysis of the chosen organic amendment. This rate is based on 270 lbs. of dry weight of organic matter per cubic yard of amendment. If a composted greenwaste amendment is chosen that provides a substantial amount of phosphorus, the ammonium phosphate should be replaced with ammonium sulfate (21-0-0) at a 1/3 lb. per cubic yard rate.

Page 2 of 20 ends

Anaheim Office
Report 21-068-0006
4741 East Hunter Ave., Ste. A    Anaheim CA  92807
(714) 282‐8777       (714) 282‐8575 fax
www.waypointanalytical.com
• Backfill below 12 inches required for 24 inch box or larger material should not contain the organic amendment or fertilizer.
• Ideally a weed and turf free zone should be maintained just beyond the diameter of the planting hole. A 2-4 inch deep layer of coarse mulch can be placed around the tree or shrub. Mulch should be kept a minimum 4 inches from the trunk.
• Irrigation of new plantings should take into consideration the differing texture of the rootball substrate and surrounding soil matrix to maintain adequate moisture during this critical period of establishment.

Maintenance
Maintenance fertilization should rely primarily on a nitrogen only program supplemented with a complete fertilizer in the fall and spring. Beginning 60 days after planting, ammonium sulfate (21-0-0) should be applied at a rate of 5 pounds per 1000 square feet with reapplication every 45-60 days. Alternatively, slow release Sulfur Coated Urea (43-0-0) may be applied at 6 pounds per 1000 square feet every 90 days. Once plants are performing satisfactorily, the frequency of fertilization may be decreased depending on color and rate of growth desired. In the winter for a quick greening effect, calcium nitrate (15.5-0-0) may be applied at a 6 pound rate if applicable. Early fall and spring, substitute a complete fertilizer such as 15-15-15 to help insure continuing adequate phosphorus and potassium.

Alternatively, Blood Meal (12-0-0) provides available nitrogen fairly rapidly while materials such as Feather Meal (12-0-0), Soybean or Cotton Seed Meal (7-1-1) are slower to provide available nitrogen, but they extend the length of time they make this contribution. In order to provide a good supply of nitrogen for a 3-4 month time frame a good combination would be 6 pounds Blood Meal and 14 pounds Feather Meal per 1000 square feet. In the fall and spring, substitute a complete organic fertilizer such as 5-5-5 applied at the manufacturer’s label rate. Or, nutrient rich composted greenwaste may be spread in a 1 to 2 inch layer, which generally carries enough nutrition to boost complete nutrition though a source of nitrogen might also be added at a half rate to assure adequate nitrogen availability.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Joe Kiefer, CCA
[email protected]
Emailed 20 Pages: [email protected]

Page 3 of 20 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22841
Sample ID: KB 1 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 1 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 1.25 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 1 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22842
Sample ID: KB 1 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 2 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.74 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 2 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22843
Sample ID: KB 14 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 3 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.98 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 3 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22844
Sample ID: KB 14 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 4 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.38 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 4 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22845
Sample ID: KB 18 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 5 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.91 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 5 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22846
Sample ID: KB 18 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 6 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.76 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 6 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22847
Sample ID: KB 25 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 7 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 1.19 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 10 of 20 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22848
Sample ID: KB 25 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 8 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.32 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 11 of 20 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22849
Sample ID: KB 27 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 9 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.59 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 12 of 20 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22850
Sample ID: KB 27 - S2- 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 10 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.60 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 10 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22851
Sample ID: KB 28 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 11 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.94 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 11 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22852
Sample ID: KB 28 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 12 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.52 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 12 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22853
Sample ID: KB 36 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 13 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.60 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 13 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22854
Sample ID: KB 36 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 14 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.36 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 14 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22855
Sample ID: KB 38 - S1 - 0-6
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 15 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.88 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 15 of 17 ends

21-068-0006
Account Number
01944
Report Number
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
Suite A
San Jose, CA 95112
Send To:

Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Analysis Result
Quantitation
Limit Method
Date and Time
Test Started Analyst
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab Number: 22856
Sample ID: KB 38 - S2 - 6-12
Project:

Date Sampled:
03/09/2021
Purchase Order: 20212905.001A
Date Received:

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Report Date: 03/15/2021
Page: 16 of 16
Organic Matter (Titration) , % 0.39 WALK-BLACK 03/11/2021 12:41 AAB Method Reference:

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3 - Chemical Methods, 2nd Ed. Rev. Soil Science Society of America, Black, C.A et al. 1982, pages 995-996.

Comments:

Page 16 of 17 ends

Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street
San Jose
Page :

Report No :

Date Recd :

Purchase Order :

Date Printed :
21-068-0006
03/09/2021
03/15/2021
1 of 1
20212905.001A Project :

Fresno, CA
Job #: 20212905.001A
Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO

COMPREHENSIVE SOIL ANALYSIS
CA
Suite A
95112
Lab No. Organic
% dry wt.

ECe
dS/m
pH
Qual
Lime TEC
Half Sat
%
Sufficiency Factors
Sample Description - Sample ID
NO -N 3 NH4-N PO -P4 K Ca Mg Cu Zn Mn Fe
ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

0.66 22857
12 67 None

6.3 0.3
10 7

0.7 0.1
2 126

1.8 1.0
938 216

1.8 0.4

0.3 0.9

0.3 0.7
4 8

0.3 Composite
Saturation Extract Values
Ca
meq/L
Mg
meq/L
Na
meq/L meq/L
K B
ppm meq/L
SO4 SAR Coarse
5 - 12
Fine
2 - 5
Gravel %
Very Coarse
1 - 2
Coarse

0.5 - 1
Med. to Very Fine

0.05 - 0.5
Sand
Percent of Sample Passing 2 mm Screen
Silt
.002-.05
Clay
0-.002
USDA Soil Classification Lab No.

2.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.09 0.7 0.4 0 0.6 6.6 12.4 41.1 20.8 19.0 Sandy Loam 22857 22857 Chloride (Cl) = 0.470 meq/L
22857 Aluminum = 2.18 meq/L
Sufficiency factor (1.0=sufficient for average crop) below each nutrient value. N factor based on 200 ppm constant feed. SAR = Sodium adsorption ratio. Half Saturation %=approx field moisture capacity. Nitrogen(N), Potassium(K), Calcium(Ca) and Magnesium(Mg) by sodium chloride extraction. Phosphorus(P) by sodium bicarbonate extraction. Copper(Cu), Zinc(Zn), Manganese(Mn) & Iron(Fe) by DTPA extraction. Sat. ext. method for salinity (ECe as dS/m),Boron (B), Sulfate(SO
* LOW , SUFFICIENT , HIGH
4 ), Sodium(Na). Gravel fraction expressed as percent by weight of oven-dried sample passing a 12mm(1/2 inch) sieve. Particle sizes in millimeters. Organic percentage determined by Walkley-Black or Loss on Ignition.

Page 17 of 17 ends

Report Number:

Sample Summary Table
Client Project Description:
21-068-0005
Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Fresno, CA
Job #: 20212905.001A
Lab No Client Sample ID Matrix Date Collected Date Received Method Lab ID 89358 Composite Formulation 03/09/2021 SW-7471A
89358 Composite Formulation 03/09/2021 SW-DRYWT
89358 Composite Formulation 03/09/2021 6010D
: A&L Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Memphis, TN

Page 1 of 3 ends

, CA 95112

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
San Jose
Report Number :21-068-0005 Received : 03/09/2021
01944
Suite A
Job #: 20212905.001A
Fresno, CA
Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street Project
Information :

Report Date : 03/17/2021
Sample ID : Sampled:

Lab No :

Composite
89358 Matrix: Formulation
Test Results Units MQL By Analytical
Batch
Date / Time
Analyzed
DF
Prep Method: 3050B
Analytical Method: 6010D Prep Batch(es): L541320 03/15/21 08:42 Total Barium 76.6 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Copper 11.6 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Arsenic 3.99 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Silver <1.34 mg/Kg - dry 1.34 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Chromium 19.5 mg/Kg - dry 1.34 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Cadmium <0.536 mg/Kg - dry 0.536 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Cobalt 6.25 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Molybdenum <1.34 mg/Kg - dry 1.34 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Nickel 14.1 mg/Kg - dry 1.34 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Lead 7.00 mg/Kg - dry 1.61 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Selenium <2.68 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Zinc 32.1 mg/Kg - dry 6.70 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Beryllium 0.772 mg/Kg - dry 0.268 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Antimony <2.68 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Thallium <5.36 mg/Kg - dry 5.36 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Total Vanadium 42.8 mg/Kg - dry 2.68 5 03/16/21 18:46 TJS L541650 Qualifiers/
Definitions
B Analyte detected in blank DF Dilution Factor
MQL Method Quantitation Limit

Page 2 of 3 ends

, CA 95112

REPORT OF ANALYSIS
San Jose
Report Number :21-068-0005 Received : 03/09/2021
01944
Suite A
Job #: 20212905.001A
Fresno, CA
Costco Fresno - New Warehouse & Fuel GEO
Kleinfelder, Inc.
380 North First Street Project
Information :

Report Date : 03/17/2021
Sample ID : Sampled:

Lab No :

Composite
89358 Matrix: Formulation
Test Results Units MQL By Analytical
Batch
Date / Time
Analyzed
DF
Prep Method: SW-7471A (PREP)
Analytical Method: SW-7471A Prep Batch(es): L541464 03/16/21 11:00 Mercury (Total) 0.05540 B mg/Kg - dry 0.01425 1 03/16/21 13:54 DDB L541729 Test Results Units MQL By Analytical
Batch
Date / Time
Analyzed
DF
Analytical Method: SW-DRYWT
% Moisture 6.68 % 1 03/15/21 17:50 FMM L541529
Qualifiers/
Definitions
B Analyte detected in blank DF Dilution Factor
MQL Method Quantitation Limit

Page 3 of 3 ends

Appendix C
Project: Costco Fresno New Warehouse
Tester Dan Dockendorf
Date:

Location: INF-1
Time
Between
Readings
(minutes)
Total
Elapsed
Time
(minutes)
Drop in
Head
(feet)
Percolation
Rate
(min/in)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hour)
30 30.00 0.53 4.76 0.67
30 60.00 0.43 5.77 0.54
30 90.00 0.38 6.6 0.47
30 120.00 0.37 6.7 0.46
30 150.00 0.31 8.0 0.38
30 180.00 0.30 8.4 0.36
30 210.00 0.29 8.6 0.35
30 240.00 0.29 8.5 0.36

3.00 3.52

3.00 2

5.50 Diameter of boring (in): 6
30 Boring Percolation Test Method Figure
C-1
20212905.001A
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
NEC of W. Herndon Ave & North Riverside Dr.

Project No.: Fresno, California 93722
Starting water level (ft, bgs): Diameter of well casing (in) Well bottom depth (ft, bgs)
Water column height Ho (in):

Method: Borehole Percolation Test Procedure March 1, 2021

INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE
Presoak Level (ft, bgs): Final period drop delta d (in):

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Time (min)
Project: Costco Fresno New Warehouse
Tester Dan Dockendorf
Date:

Location: INF-2
Time
Between
Readings
(minutes)
Total
Elapsed
Time
(minutes)
Drop in
Head
(feet)
Percolation
Rate
(min/in)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hour)
10 10.00 0.32 2.60 1.33
10 20.00 0.31 2.69 1.29
10 30.00 0.33 2.5 1.38
10 40.00 0.34 2.5 1.40
10 50.00 0.33 2.5 1.38
10 60.00 0.35 2.4 1.47
10 70.00 0.34 2.5 1.42
10 80.00 0.33 2.5 1.38

3.0 3.96

3.0 2

5.20 Diameter of boring (in): 6

26.4 Boring Percolation Test Method Figure
C-2
20212905.001A
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
NEC of W. Herndon Ave & North Riverside Dr.

Project No.: Fresno, California 93722
Starting water level (ft, bgs): Diameter of well casing (in) Well bottom depth (ft, bgs)
Water column height Ho (in):

Method: Borehole Percolation Test Procedure March 1, 2021

INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE
Presoak Level (ft, bgs): Final period drop delta d (in):

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0 20 40 60 80 100
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Time (min)
Project: Costco Fresno New Warehouse
Tester Dan Dockendorf
Date:

Location: INF-3
Time
Between
Readings
(minutes)
Total
Elapsed
Time
(minutes)
Drop in
Head
(feet)
Percolation
Rate
(min/in)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hour)
10 10.00 0.25 3.33 1.13
10 20.00 0.18 4.63 0.80
10 30.00 0.15 5.6 0.66
10 40.00 0.17 4.9 0.75
10 50.00 0.16 5.2 0.70
10 60.00 0.18 4.6 0.80
10 70.00 0.17 4.9 0.75
10 80.00 0.17 4.9 0.75

3.0 2.05

3.0 2

5.00 Diameter of boring (in): 6
24 Boring Percolation Test Method Figure
C-3
20212905.001A
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
NEC of W. Herndon Ave & North Riverside Dr.

Project No.: Fresno, California 93722
Starting water level (ft, bgs): Diameter of well casing (in) Well bottom depth (ft, bgs)
Water column height Ho (in):

Method: Borehole Percolation Test Procedure March 1, 2021

INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE
Presoak Level (ft, bgs): Final period drop delta d (in):

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0 20 40 60 80 100
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Time (min)
Project: Costco Fresno New Warehouse
Tester Dan Dockendorf
Date:

Location: INF-4
Time
Between
Readings
(minutes)
Total
Elapsed
Time
(minutes)
Drop in
Head
(feet)
Percolation
Rate
(min/in)
Tested
Infiltration
Rate
(in/hour)
10 10.00 0.35 2.38 1.17
10 20.00 0.33 2.53 1.10
10 30.00 0.31 2.7 1.03
10 40.00 0.30 2.8 0.99
10 50.00 0.25 3.3 0.82
10 60.00 0.32 2.6 1.06
10 70.00 0.32 2.6 1.06
10 80.00 0.32 2.6 1.05

2.5 3.8

2.5 2

5.25 Diameter of boring (in): 6
33 Boring Percolation Test Method Figure
C-4
20212905.001A
Costco Fresno New Warehouse
NEC of W. Herndon Ave & North Riverside Dr.

Project No.: Fresno, California 93722
Starting water level (ft, bgs): Diameter of well casing (in) Well bottom depth (ft, bgs)
Water column height Ho (in):

Method: Borehole Percolation Test Procedure March 1, 2021

INCREMENTAL INFILTRATION RATE
Presoak Level (ft, bgs): Final period drop delta d (in):

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0 20 40 60 80 100
Infiltration Rate (in/hr)
Time (min)
Appendix C
Air Quality Technical Report

Prepared for
Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Sacramento, California
Project Number
1690023335
Date
June 2023

COSTCO COMMERCIAL CENTER

AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL REPORT

FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
i
Contents

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Existing Conditions 1

1.2 Project Analysis 1

2. Environmental and Regulatory Background 2

2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants 2

2.1.1 Ozone 2

2.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide 2

2.1.3 Carbon Monoxide 2

2.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide 3

2.1.5 Particulate Matter 3

2.1.6 Lead 3

2.1.7 Sulfates 4

2.1.8 Vinyl Chloride 4

2.1.9 Hydrogen Sulfide 4

2.1.10 Visibility-Reducing Particles 4

2.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants 4

2.2.1 Toxic Air Contaminants 4

2.2.2 Diesel Particulate Matter 5

2.3 Regulatory Setting 5

2.3.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants 5

2.3.2 Federal Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles Fuel Efficiency Standards 6

2.3.3 Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants Program 8

2.3.4 California’s Air Toxics Program 8

2.3.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700 9

2.3.6 California’s Pavley Standards 9

2.3.7 California’s Advanced Clean Cars 9

2.3.8 California’s Advanced Clean Trucks 10

2.3.9 California’s Diesel Emissions Control Measures 10

2.3.9.1 ATCM: Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 10

2.3.9.2 ATCM: Stationary Compression Ignition Engines 11

2.3.9.3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets 11

2.3.9.4 Truck and Bus Regulation 11

2.3.10 Local Regulations and Guidance 12

2.3.10.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 12

2.3.10.2 City of Fresno General Plan 15

2.4 Environmental Setting 15

2.4.1 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data 15

3. Significance Thresholds 16

3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines 16

3.2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Thresholds 16

3.3 Project Approach to Significance 17

4. Air Quality Emissions Inventory 18

4.1 Resources 18

4.1.1 California Emission Estimator Model® 18

4.2 Construction Emissions 19
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
ii
Contents

4.2.1 Emissions from Construction Equipment 20

4.2.2 Emissions from On-Road Construction Trips 20

4.2.3 Fugitive Dust 20

4.2.4 Architectural Coating 21

4.2.5 Paving 21

4.2.6 Total Construction Emissions 21

4.3 Operational Emissions 21

4.3.1 Area Sources 21

4.3.2 Energy Sources 21

4.3.3 Operational Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 22

4.3.4 Mobile Sources 22

4.3.4.1 Calculating Mobile Source Emissions 23

4.3.4.2 Mobile Source Emissions 24

4.3.5 Total Operational Emissions 24

5. Health Risk Assessment 26

5.1 Estimated Air Concentrations 26

5.1.1 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions 26

5.1.2 Air Dispersion Modeling Methodology 27

5.1.2.1 AERMOD 27

5.1.2.2 Source Characterization 28

5.1.2.3 Meteorology 28

5.1.2.4 Land Use 28

5.1.2.5 Emission Rates 29

5.1.2.6 Receptors 29

5.2 Risk Characterization Methods 30

5.3 Exposure Assessment 30

5.3.1 Age Sensitivity Factors 31

5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment 31

5.4 Risk Characterization 32

5.4.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks 32

5.4.1.1 Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Indices 33

5.5 Health Risk Results 33

6. CO Hotspots 34

6.1 Regulatory Background 34

6.2 Traffic Study Findings 35

7. Project Inventory in Context 37

7.1 Threshold 1 37

7.2 Threshold 2 38

7.3 Threshold 3 38

7.3.1 Health Risk Thresholds 38

7.3.2 CO Hotspots 38

7.4 Threshold 4 40

7.4.1 Odors 40

7.4.2 Valley Fever 41

7.4.2.1 Background 41

7.4.2.2 Assessment of Valley Fever Risks 43
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
iii
Contents (Continued)

CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of NAAQS and CAAQS
Table 2-2 SJVAPCD NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Status
Table 2-3 Local Ambient Air Quality Data (Fresno County) Table 2-4 Frequency of Air Quality Standard Violations
Table 3-1 SJVAPCD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds Table 4-1 Construction Schedule
Table 4-2 Construction Equipment
Table 4-3 Construction Material Movement
Table 4-4 Construction Demolition Assumptions
Table 4-5 Annual and Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Construction Table 4-6 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Operational VOC Emissions Table 4-7 TRU Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Calculations Table 4-8a Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Operation Table 4-8b On-site Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Operation Table 5-1 HARP Health Risk Assessment Options for Construction HRA Table 5-2 HARP Health Risk Assessment Options for Operational HRA Table 5-3 Health Risk Assessment Results

FIGURES
Figure 1 Modeled Construction Emission Sources
Figure 2 Modeled Operational Emission Sources
Figure 3 Meteorological Station Location
Figure 4 Modeled Grid and Sensitive Receptors

APPENDICES
Appendix A – CalEEMod® Output
Appendix B – Mobile Source Emission Calculations
Appendix C – Construction Health Risk Assessment Emission Calculations Appendix D – Operational Health Risk Assessment Emission Calculations Appendix E – AERMOD Inputs
Appendix F – HARP2 Outputs
Appendix G – CO Hotspots
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
AEI annual emissions inventory
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model
AP-42 United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
APCDs Air Pollution Control Districts
AQ air quality
AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan
AQMDs Air Quality Management Districts
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
ASFs age sensitivity factors
AvgHP Maximum rated average horsepower
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod® California Emission Estimator Model®
CAP criteria air pollutant
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
cREL chronic reference exposure level
CUP conditional use permit
CY cubic yard
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EF emission factor
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtors model
EVR Enhanced vapor recovery
FAH Fraction of time at home
g/m3 gram/cubic meter
GDF gasoline dispensing facility
GHG greenhouse gas
HARP Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program
HIA acute hazard index
HIC chronic hazard index
HIs hazard indices
HQ hazard quotient
HRA health risk assessment
LDR Land Disposal Restrictions
LLC Limited Liability Company
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym Definition
LOS level of service
MDO market delivery operation
MSW municipal solid waste
MT metric tonnes
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NED National Elevation Datasets
NESHAPs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO Nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
O3 ozone
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OFFROAD Off-road Emissions Inventory Program model
Pb Lead
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ppm parts per million by volume
Ramboll Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL reference exposure level
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
TACs Toxic Air Contaminant
TRUs transportation refrigeration units
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
ZEV zero emission vehicle

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
1 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION
Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) was retained to prepare an Air Quality (AQ) Technical Report for the proposed Costco warehouse and gasoline dispensing facility in Fresno, California (Project).

This AQ Technical Report analyzes the Project’s impacts on air quality from construction and operations. In particular, this report describes the existing setting of the Project site, describes the relevant regulatory setting, discusses the methodology used to evaluate AQ emissions related to the Project, and evaluates potential impacts related to AQ that would be affected as a result of implementation of the Project.

1.1 Existing Conditions
The existing 22.4-acre site is currently undeveloped, located within the Bullard Community Plan Area, and designated by both the General Plan and zoning as Community Commercial.

The location of the site is in Fresno, California at West Herndon Avenue and North Riverside Drive.

1.2 Project Analysis
The “Project” is defined as Project operation of the newly constructed Costco. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) proposes to construct the Costco Commercial Center, which comprises a new Costco facility (including loading docks and internal space to provide lastmile home delivery of big and bulky items) with an attached tire center and a detached gas station and drive-through car wash in the City of Fresno.

The Project would develop a new Costco retail building; gas station; car wash; and associated parking areas, driveways, and other supporting infrastructure. Costco Wholesale is proposing to construct a wholesale retail facility with approximately 178,000 square feet (sq. ft.); of which approximately 57,000 sq. ft. would be reserved for storage and receiving at the northeast corner of W. Herndon Ave. and N. Riverside Dr (APN 50302012). The project involves the construction of a Costco retail facility that includes an attached tire center, as well as a detached gas station and a drive-through car wash. The project would include a Costco members-only gas station on the northern portion of the project site adjacent to West Spruce Avenue. The facility would include an approximately 11,500 square-foot canopy and a 125 square-foot controller enclosure. There would be four covered fueling islands, each with four two-sided fuel dispensers to provide for the fueling of eight cars at each island, for a total of 32 fueling positions. A Costco members-only automated carwash would be located at the northeastern corner of the project site, adjacent to the gas station. The car wash structure would be approximately 4,800 sq. ft. The project would have its main access points along North Riverside Drive and include approximately 889 parking stalls.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
2 Environmental and Regulatory Background

2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants (CAPs) are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. These pollutants are discussed in the following paragraphs.

2.1.1 Ozone
O3 is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sometimes referred to as reactive organic gases, and NOx react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O3 is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of VOCs and NOX, the precursors of O3, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in the San Joaquin Valley can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes.

2.1.2 Nitrogen Dioxide
Most NO2, like O3, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOX and are major contributors to O3 formation. The primary sources of NO, the precursor to NO2, include automobile exhaust and industrial sources. High concentrations of NO2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere, causing reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis, and some increase in bronchitis in children (2 and 3 years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million by volume (ppm).

2.1.3 Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, such as the Project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
3 Environmental and Regulatory Background
surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions, where a layer of warm air sits atop cool air, are more frequent and can trap pollutants close to the ground. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.

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

2.1.5 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOX), NOX, and VOCs. Inhalable or coarse particulate matter, or PM10, is about one- seventh the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions.

PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the bloodstream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility.

2.1.6 Lead
Lead (Pb) in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline, the manufacturing of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
4 Environmental and Regulatory Background
Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emission sources of greater concern.

Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth.

2.1.7 Sulfates
Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere.

Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility.

2.1.8 Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.

2.1.9 Hydrogen Sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.

2.1.10 Visibility-Reducing Particles
Visibility-reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of visibility.

Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the view shed of natural scenery, reduced airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5 described above.

2.2 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants

2.2.1 Toxic Air Contaminants
A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, waste processing facilities and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills.

Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced either on short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
5 Environmental and Regulatory Background

2.2.2 Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (DPM; 17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on-road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars, and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM.1 To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000.

2.3 Regulatory Setting

2.3.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Air Pollutants The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the adoption of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are periodically updated, to protect the public health and welfare from the effects of air pollution. Current federal standards are set for SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.2
The State of California also has established additional standards, known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The current NAAQS and CAAQS are shown in Table 2-1.

Specific geographic areas are classified as either "attainment" or "non-attainment" areas for each pollutant based upon the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Those areas designated as “non-attainment” for purposes of NAAQS compliance are required to prepare regional air quality plans, which set forth a strategy for bringing an area into compliance with the standards. These regional air quality plans developed to meet federal requirements are included in an overall program referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). If the SIP is deemed acceptable, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will delegate responsibility for implementation pursuant to the SIP to the State and/or its air districts therein.

Whenever the USEPA revises or establishes a new NAAQS, the State and the USEPA have specific obligations to ensure that the NAAQS is met.3 These are listed below:
• The USEPA must designate areas as meeting (attainment areas) or not meeting (non-attainment areas) the NAAQS within two years after its promulgation. • States must submit “infrastructure SIPs” to show that they have the basic air quality management program components in place to implement the NAAQS within three years after its promulgation.
1 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.

Accessed: February 2022.
2 NAAQS. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed: February 2022. 3 USEPA. NAAQS Implementation Process. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqsimplementation-process. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
6 Environmental and Regulatory Background
• States must submit non-attainment area SIPs that outline the strategies and emission control measures that will improve air quality and make the area meet the NAAQS within 18 to 36 months after designation.

The steps involved in the SIP process are described below.4 • SIPs must be developed with public input and be formally adopted by the State and submitted to the USEPA by the Governor’s designee (CARB in California). • The USEPA reviews each SIP and proposes to approve or disapprove all or part it. The public is then provided with an opportunity to comment on the USEPA's proposed action.

The USEPA considers public input before taking final action on a State's plan. • If the USEPA approves all or part of a SIP, those control measures are enforceable in federal court. In the event a State fails to submit an approvable SIP or if the USEPA disapproves a SIP, the USEPA is required to develop a Federal Implementation Plan.

Table 2-2 summarizes the attainment status of Fresno County (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) for the pollutants regulated by the NAAQS and CAAQS.5 As seen in Table 2-2, Fresno County is currently in attainment (including where unclassified) for: the federal PM10 standard, the federal and State CO standards, the federal and State NO2 standards, the federal and State SO2 standards, the federal and state lead standards, and the State visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride standards. However, as also shown in Table 2-2, Fresno County is currently designated as nonattainment for the State 1-hour O3 standard, the federal and State 8-hour O3 standards, the State PM10 standards, and the federal and State PM2.5 standards.6, 7, 8

2.3.2 Federal Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles Fuel Efficiency Standards In 2010, President Obama issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to establish additional standards regarding fuel efficiency and GHG reduction, clean fuels, and advanced vehicle infrastructure. In response to this directive, the USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed stringent, coordinated federal GHG and fuel economy standards for model year 2017–2025 light-duty vehicles. The proposed standards are projected to achieve 163 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2025, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, which is equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) if this level were achieved solely through fuel efficiency. The final rule was adopted in 2012 for model years 2017–2021, and NHTSA intends to set standards for model years 2022–2025 in a future rulemaking.

In addition to the regulations applicable to cars and light-duty trucks described above, in 2011, the USEPA and NHTSA announced fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and 4 USEPA. State Implementation Plan Development Process. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-implementation-process. Accessed: February 2022. 5 USEPA. Non-attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/greenbook. Accessed: February 2022. 6 Ibid.
7 California standard attainment status based on CARB website. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: February 2022. 8 SJVAPCD Attainment status. Available at: https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
7 Environmental and Regulatory Background
heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014–2018. The standards for CO2 emissions and fuel consumption are tailored to three main vehicle categories: combination tractors, heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles.

In August 2016, the USEPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018 through 2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021 through 2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types of sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 1.1 billion metric tons (MT) and reduce oil consumption by up to two billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program.9 In August 2017, the USEPA asked for additional information and data relevant to assessing whether the GHG emissions standards for model years 2022-2025 remain appropriate. In early 2018, the USEPA Administrator announced that the midterm evaluation for the GHG emissions standards for cars and light-duty trucks for model years 2022-2025 was completed and stated his determination that the current standards should be revised in light of recent data. Subsequently, in April 2018, the USEPA and NHTSA proposed to amend certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2022-2025. Compared to maintaining the post-2020 standards now in place, the pending proposal would increase U.S. fuel consumption.10 California and other states have announced their intent to challenge federal actions that would delay or eliminate GHG reductions. In April 2020, NHTSA and EPA amended the CAFE and GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new less stringent standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026.

On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and NHTSA published the SAFE Rule (Part One).11 The SAFE Rule (Part One) went into effect in November 2019, and revoked California’s authority to set its own GHGs standards and set zero emission vehicle mandates in California. The SAFE Rule (Part One) freezes new zero emission vehicles (ZEV) sales at model year 2020 levels for year 2021 and beyond, and will likely result in a lower number of future ZEVs and a corresponding greater number of future gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles. In response to the USEPA’s adoption of the SAFE Rule (Part One), CARB has issued guidance regarding the adjustment of vehicle emissions factors to account for the rule’s implications 9 USEPA and NHTSA. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles – Phase 2. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016- 21203.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.
10 NHTSA. 2018. Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 72, Rules & Regulations, Mid-Term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicles. April 13. Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/13/2018-07364/mid-term-evaluation-of-greenhouse-gasemissions-standards-for-model-year-2022-2025-light-duty. Accessed: February 2022. 11 USEPA and NHTSA. 2019. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 188, The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program. September 27. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR2019-09-27/pdf/2019-20672.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
8 Environmental and Regulatory Background
on criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.12,13 The SAFE Rule is subject to ongoing litigation and on February 8, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Biden Administration’s motion to stay litigation over Part 1 of the SAFE Rule. On April 22 and April 28, 2021, respectively, NHTSA and USEPA formally announced their intent to reconsider the Safe Rule (Part One).14 In August 2021, USEPA proposed to revise existing national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023- 2026 to make the standards more stringent. The NHTSA finalized the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Pre-emption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the SAFE I Rule on December 21, 2021.15 On March 9, 2022, USEPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and ZEV sales mandate and entirely rescinded the SAFE Rule (Part One).

In December 2021, the USEPA finalized federal GHG emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks for Model Years 2023 through 2026. These standards are the strongest vehicle emissions standards ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector and are based on sound science and grounded in a rigorous assessment of current and future technologies.

The updated standards will result in avoiding more than 3 billion tons of GHG emissions through 2050.16

2.3.3 Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants Program
The 1977 CAA Amendments required the USEPA to identify National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) to protect the public health and welfare. Hazardous air pollutants include certain VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals.

Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, which expanded the control program for hazardous air pollutants, 189 substances and chemical families were identified as hazardous air pollutants.

2.3.4 California’s Air Toxics Program
The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 (Tanner). The California TAC list identifies more than 700 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) hazardous air pollutants.
12 CARB. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. November 20.

Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.
13 CARB. 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June 26. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020-final.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.
14 USEPA. 2021. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 80, California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Car Program; Reconsideration of a previous Withdrawal of a Waiver of Preemption; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Public Comment. April 28. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissionsvehicles-and-engines/notice-reconsideration-previous-withdrawal-waiver. Accessed: February 2022. 15 NHTSA. Available at: https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. Accessed: May 2022.
16 USEPA. 2021. Final Rule to Revise Existing National GHG Emissions Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Through Model Year 2026. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-andengines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. Accessed: January 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
9 Environmental and Regulatory Background
The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; however, AB 2588 does not reduce the quantity of air toxics emissions. Instead, under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. “High-priority” facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment, and if specific thresholds are exceeded, are required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.

In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines. The plan is anticipated to result in an 85% decrease in statewide diesel health risk in 2020 compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off-Road Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment program. All of these regulations and programs have timetables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel-powered equipment. There also are several Airborne Toxic Control Measures that reduce diesel emissions, including In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) and In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).

2.3.5 California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
This section of the Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.

2.3.6 California’s Pavley Standards
AB 1493 ("the Pavley Standard" or AB 1493) required CARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 through 2016.

CARB’s approach to passenger vehicles (cars and light trucks), under AB 1493, combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. This new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and zero-emission vehicles in California. These standards will apply to all passenger and light-duty trucks used by customers, employees of and deliveries to the Project. While AB 1493 focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.

2.3.7 California’s Advanced Clean Cars
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) program,17 a new emissions-control program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. While ACC focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would 17 Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/index.php/our-work/programs/advancedclean-cars-program. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
10 Environmental and Regulatory Background
also help reduce criteria air pollutants. At the time of this writing, CARB has adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) regulations which “will seek to reduce criteria and greenhouse gas emissions from new light- and medium-duty vehicles beyond the 2025 model year and increase the number of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) for sale”.18

2.3.8 California’s Advanced Clean Trucks
In June 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which has requirements for manufacturer ZEV sales and a one-time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets.19 The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation is part of a holistic approach to accelerate a large-scale transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. Manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40% of truck tractor sales. Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others are required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, are required to report about their existing fleet operations.

This information helps to identify future strategies to ensure that fleets purchase available zero-emission trucks and place them in service where suitable to meet their needs.

2.3.9 California’s Diesel Emissions Control Measures
CARB has adopted a number of Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) to control diesel particulate emissions and emissions from in-use on- and off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. With the assistance of the Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, CARB developed and approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles20 and the Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines.21 Various control measures adopted by CARB to reduce diesel emissions are summarized below.

2.3.9.1 ATCM: Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling This ATCM applies to diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed for operation on highways. The measure limits idling of trucks to a maximum of 5 minutes, except when the vehicle is queuing.22 While this ATCM focuses on the reduction of diesel particulate emissions as a toxic, this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants. 18 Advanced Clean Cars II Program. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/advanced-clean-cars-ii-meetingsworkshops. Accessed: February 2022. 19 CARB. 2020. Advanced Clean Trucks. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-cleantrucks. Accessed: February 2022. 20 CARB. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 21 CARB. 2008. California’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan: Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rmg.htm. Accessed:

February 2022.
22 13 CCR 2485: Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/truck-idling/13ccr2485_09022016.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
11 Environmental and Regulatory Background

2.3.9.2 ATCM: Stationary Compression Ignition Engines
This ATCM establishes emission standards and fuel use requirements for new and in-use stationary engines used in prime and emergency back-up applications (non-agricultural) and for new stationary engines used in agricultural applications.23 While this ATCM focuses on the reduction of diesel particulate emissions as a toxic, this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.

2.3.9.3 In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets
These regulations reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions from in-use, off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles typically are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulations, among other requirements, impose limits on idling; require all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; restrict the adding of older vehicles into fleets; and require fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) (i.e., exhaust retrofits).

The requirements and compliance dates of the regulations vary by fleet size. Large fleets have compliance deadlines each year from 2014 through 2023, medium fleets each year from 2017 through 2023, and small fleets each year from 2019 through 2028.24 At the time of writing, CARB is in the process of developing a rule amendment. The target of the amendment aligns with the targets set out by the Draft 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, which sets a goal of reducing statewide NOx emissions from the construction and earth moving sector by 7.5 tpd by 2031.

2.3.9.4 Truck and Bus Regulation
The Truck and Bus Regulation (13 CCR 2025) requires diesel trucks and buses to be upgraded to reduce emissions; newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements; lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced; and, by January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent to reduce PM and NOx emissions.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately- and federally-owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses, and to privately- and publicly-owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides a variety of flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low use vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks. 23 17 CCR 93115: Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Engines. Available at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I32577B50D60811DE88AEDDE29ED1DC0A?originationContext=Se arch+Result&listSource=Search&viewType=FullText&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavi gation%2fi0ad62d2e00000160511f23fc18257bb0%3fstartIndex%3d1%26Nav%3dREGULATION_PUBLICVIEW% 26contextData%3d(sc.Default)&rank=1&list=REGULATION_PUBLICVIEW&transitionType=SearchItem&contextD ata=(sc.Search)&t_T1=17&t_T2=93115&t_S1=CA+ADC+s. Accessed: February 2022. 24 13 CCR 2449: General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets. Available at:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID1C693E02DDD11E197D9B83B68A61150?originationContext=Se arch+Result&listSource=Search&viewType=FullText&navigationPath=Search%2fv3%2fsearch%2fresults%2fnavi gation%2fi0ad62d2e000001605120fcc918257bd2%3fstartIndex%3d1%26Nav%3dREGULATION_PUBLICVIEW% 26contextData%3d(sc.Default)&rank=1&list=REGULATION_PUBLICVIEW&transitionType=SearchItem&contextD ata=(sc.Search)&t_T1=13&t_T2=2449&t_S1=CA+ADC+s. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
12 Environmental and Regulatory Background

2.3.10 Local Regulations and Guidance
Air pollution often does not conform to city and/or county jurisdictional boundaries, and the State has been divided into air basins based on geographical and meteorological conditions.

Air pollution within each air basin is regulated by the regional air pollution control districts/air quality management districts, in a manner that is consistent with and in furtherance of standards adopted by the USEPA and CARB. The Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

2.3.10.1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District District Plans
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) and Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The Project site is located within the SJVAB and is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the SJVAPCD.

The SJVAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SJVAB. The SJVAPCD's air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control methods have worked, and to show how air pollution will be reduced. The plans also use computer modelling to estimate future levels of pollution and to demonstrate that the Valley will meet air quality goals. The most recent plans are summarized below.
2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards
In November 2018, SJVAPCD adopted the 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards.25 This plan addresses the USEPA federal 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and 24-hour PM2.5 standard; the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard; and the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard. In the report, SJVAPCD included mobile source measures and a comprehensive suite of fiscally responsible local measures for stationary and area sources, including measures to further reduce emissions from industrial sources, residential wood burning and commercial charbroiling.
2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard
In June 2016, SJVAPCD adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-hour Ozone Standard. 26 Through the comprehensive stationary and mobile source control strategies that previously have been adopted and that are now proposed in this plan, NOx emissions in the SJVAB are expected to be reduced by over 60% between 2012 and 2031. As a result, the ambient ozone concentrations are projected to decrease dramatically in all areas of the Valley, such that future 8-hour ozone concentrations are expected to demonstrate attainment. 25 SJVAPCD. 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/pmplans/documents/2018/pm-plan-adopted/2018-Plan-for-the-1997-2006-and-2012- PM2.5-Standards.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.
26 SJVAPCD (June 2016), “2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard.” Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
13 Environmental and Regulatory Background
District Rules and Regulations
The SJVAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the SJVAB. Below is a list of SJVAPCD rules relevant to the Project:

Regulation II: Permits
Regulation II (Rules 2010-2550) contains a series of rules covering permitting requirements within the SJVAB. SJVAPCD regulations require any person constructing, altering, replacing or operating any source which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.

Rule 3135: Dust Control Plan Fee
This rule requires the applicant to submit a fee in addition to a Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this fee is to recover the SJVAPCD's cost for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections.27
Rule 4101: Visible Emissions
This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere.28
Rule 4102: Nuisance
This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials. In the event that the Project or construction of the Project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to SJVAPCD enforcement action.29 Rule 4601: Architectural Coating
This rule limits VOC content in architectural coatings. This rule also contains requirements for architectural coatings storage, clean up and labeling.30 Rule 4622: Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks This rule applies to any gasoline storage and dispensing operation or mobile fueler from which gasoline is transferred into motor vehicle fuel tanks. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions to gasoline vapors.31
27 SJVAPCD (October 2005), “Dust Control Plan Fee,” Rule 3135. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/2018/R3135-a2.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 28 SJVAPCD (February 2005), “Visible Emissions,” Rule 4101. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4101.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 29 SJVAPCD (May 1992), “Nuisance,” Rule 4102. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4102.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 30 SJVAPCD (April 1991), “Architectural Coatings,” Rule 4601. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 31 SJVAPCD (December 2013), “Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks,” Rule 4622. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/Rule4622.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
14 Environmental and Regulatory Background
Rule 4641: Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations Rule 4641 applies to the manufacture and use of cutback asphalt, slow cure asphalt and emulsified asphalt for paving and maintenance operations. Asphalt paving operations associated with the Project will be subject to Rule 4641.32 Regulation VIII: Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions
Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081) contains a series of rules designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, etc. If a construction Project is 10 or more acres in area or will include moving, depositing or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards (CY) per day of bulk materials on at least three days, then a Dust Control Plan must be submitted as specified in Section 6.3.1 of Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction and Other Earthmoving Activities). Construction activities shall not commence until the SJVAPCD has approved the Dust Control Plan. The Project may also be subject to additional provisions within Rule 8021, as well as Rule 8031 (Bulk Materials), Rule 8041 (Carryout and Track Out), Rule 8051 (Open Areas), Rule 8061 (Paved and Unpaved Roads), and Rule 8071 (Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas). For example, Rule 8061 places thresholds and requirements on limiting Visible Dust Emissions from unpaved road segments to 20% opacity.33
Rule 9510: Indirect Source Rule
This rule requires the applicants of certain development projects which equal or exceed established applicability thresholds to apply to the SJVAPCD when applying for the development’s last discretionary approval.34 The rule is applicable for a development project which upon full buildout would include 2,000 square feet of commercial space as well as a large development project which upon full buildout would include 10,000 square feet of commercial space. This Project includes a commercial space (warehouse) greater than 10,000 square feet. Projects subject to the rule are required to quantify indirect emissions (mobile source emissions), area source emissions and construction exhaust emissions and to mitigate a portion of these emissions. The Indirect Source Rule was adopted December 2005 and last amended December 2017. Rule 9510 was adopted to reduce the impacts of growth in emissions from all new development in the San Joaquin Valley. Developers of projects subject to Rule 9510 must reduce emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The reductions for construction equipment exhaust emissions (for equipment greater than 50 horsepower) are 20% of the total NOx emissions and 45% of the total PM10 exhaust emissions. For operation, the operational baseline NOx emissions must be reduced by 33.3% and operational baseline PM10 emissions by 50% over a period of ten years. One hundred percent of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project. The emission 32 SJVAPCD (April 1991), “Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations,” Rule 4641. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4641.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 33 SJVAPCD (November 2001), “Paved and Unpaved Roads,” Rule 8061. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r8061.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 34 SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review). Available online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r9510-a.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
15 Environmental and Regulatory Background
reductions expected from the rule allow the SJVAPCD to achieve attainment of the federal air quality standards for ozone by 2031.35

2.3.10.2 City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fresno’s General Plan was adopted in December 2014.36 The General Plan includes a Resource Conservation and Resilience section which addresses both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The City acknowledges its role in improving air quality by supporting and leading, where appropriate, regional, State and federal programs and actions for the improvement of air quality, especially the SJVAPCD’s efforts to monitor and control air pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources, which is summarized in Policy RC-4- a. Other implementing policies under the overall RC-4 objective in the General Plan seek to take necessary actions to achieve and maintain compliance with State and federal air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

The City of Fresno’s General Plan and Development Code Update Master Environmental Impact Report37 outlines the local air quality and assesses carbon monoxide hotspot impacts.

The report states that no CO hotspot modeling should be required for new projects during General Plan Buildout unless intersection volumes exceed 36,000 peak hour trips.

2.4 Environmental Setting

2.4.1 Local Air Quality Monitoring Data
The Project is located within the SJVAB. The SJVAB consists of eight counties: Fresno, Kern (western and central), Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare.

Cumulatively, these counties make up about 16% of California's geographic area, making the SJVAB the second largest air quality basin in the State.

The SJVAB has 37 monitoring stations to measure air quality; 24 operated by the SJVAPCD, 2 by the National Park Service, 2 by tribal groups, 9 by CARB, and 1 jointly operated by the SJVAPCD and CARB. The location of these monitoring stations can be viewed on the SJVAPCD air monitoring webpage map of air monitoring sites in operation.38 The monitoring stations closest to the Project site are Fresno – Sierra Skypark #2; Fresno – Garland; and Fresno – First Street. Only one monitoring station in the SJVAPCD measures SO2, so the Fresno station at First Street was used for this data. The most recent four years of published data at these monitoring stations are provided in Table 2-3. The frequency with which the ozone and PM standards have been exceeded at the nearest monitoring sites is displayed in Table 2-4.
35 SJVAPCD. 2016 Ozone Plan for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 36 City of Fresno. 2014. Fresno General Plan. Available at: https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wpcontent/uploads/sites/10/2019/07/ConsolidatedGP6182020.pdf. Accessed: July 2022. 37 City of Fresno. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-03-Air-Quality-MEIR.pdf.

Accessed: July 2022.
38 SJVAPCD. Air Monitoring. Available at: https://valleyair.org/aqinfo/air-monitoring.htm. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
16 Significance Thresholds

3. SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

3.1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
The analysis provided in this report evaluates the significance of the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions by reference to the following questions from Section III, Air Quality, of Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines39:

Threshold 1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 2. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Threshold 3. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Threshold 4. Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
An evaluation of the Project based on the significance thresholds discussed below is provided in subsequent sections.

3.2 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Thresholds The SJVAPCD has established significance thresholds40 to assess the impacts of projectrelated construction and operational emissions on regional and local ambient air quality.

Table 3-1 shows the mass annual thresholds for construction and operation as adopted by the SJVAPCD for CAP and TAC emissions. As shown in Table 3-1, the SJVAPCD has separate operational emissions thresholds for permitted equipment and activities and non-permitted equipment and activities. Permitted equipment and activities are those which require a permit through SJVAPCD. Non-permitted equipment and activities do not require a permit and include area, energy, and mobile sources. The analysis summarized in this report estimates project-related construction and operational mass emissions and compares the emissions to these significance thresholds.

The thresholds represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to evaluate whether project-related emissions would cause a significant impact on air quality. For pollutants in attainment, emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. When assessing the significance of project-related impacts on air quality, impacts may be significant when on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures.41 Under such circumstance, SJVAPCD recommends that an ambient air quality analysis be performed. In the event that emissions exceed these daily thresholds, modeling would be required to demonstrate that 39 California Natural Resources Agency. 2018. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Available at:
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 40 SJVAPCD. 2015. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. March 19. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-gamaqi-criteria-pollutant-thresholds-of-significance.pdf.

Accessed: February 2022.
41 SJVAPCD. 2015. GAMAQI. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed: July 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
17 Significance Thresholds
the project’s total air quality impacts result in ground-level concentrations that are below the CAAQS and NAAQS, including appropriate background levels.

3.3 Project Approach to Significance
This report, relative to threshold 1, evaluates the Project for consistency with applicable plans related to emissions, including the regional air quality attainment plans. This report, relative to threshold 2, quantifies the Project’s emissions during construction and operations and compares those results to the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds. Relative to threshold 3, this report includes a CO hotspots analysis and summarizes results of the Health Risk Assessment Technical Report which assesses the potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors. This report, relative to threshold 4, evaluates the potential for odor-generating activities from the Project.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
18 Air Quality Emissions Inventory

4. AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS INVENTORY
This section describes the methodology that Ramboll used to develop the criteria air pollutant emission inventories associated with the Project, which include one-time emissions associated with construction of the Project, and annual emissions associated with operation of the Project. Construction is expected to occur in mid- to late-2023. Emissions due to operation of the Project are therefore quantified for 2023. This is a conservative assumption for on-road and off-road mobile sources as vehicular emissions are expected to decrease in future years due to anticipated Statewide improvements and fleet turnover to newer equipment and vehicles. Sub-categories of operational emissions include the following: area, energy, mobile, and gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) sources. The emissions inventory reflects the reasonably foreseeable change based on the discontinued operation of the Costco Warehouse located at 4500 W Shaw Avenue. For purposes of this analysis, 4500 W Shaw Avenue is assumed to be backfilled by a shopping center use.

4.1 Resources

4.1.1 California Emission Estimator Model®
Ramboll primarily utilized the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®) version 2020.4.042 methodology to assist in quantifying the criteria air pollutant emissions in the inventories presented in this report for the proposed project. CalEEMod® provides methodologies to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from a land use development project. It calculates daily or annual criteria air pollutant emissions.

Specifically, the model methodology aids the user in the following calculations:
• One-time short-term construction emissions associated with site preparation, grading, building, and paving from off-road construction equipment, and on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling. • Operational emissions associated with the fully built out project, such as on-road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the land uses, emissions from architectural coating, and emissions from consumer products.

CalEEMod® is a statewide program designed to calculate both criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from development projects in California developed under the auspices of the SCAQMD, with input from other California air districts, and is currently supported by numerous lead agencies for use in quantifying the emissions associated with development projects undergoing environmental review. CalEEMod® utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. These models and default estimates use sources such as the USEPA AP-42 emission factors,43 CARB’s on-road and off-road equipment emission models such as the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) and the Emissions Inventory Program model 42 SCAQMD. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model®. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod.

Accessed: February 2022.
43 The USEPA maintains a compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and process information for several air pollution source categories. The data is based on source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-airemissions-factors. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
19 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
(OFFROAD), and studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle.

As mentioned above, CalEEMod® is based upon the CARB-approved OFFROAD and EMFAC models. OFFROAD44 is an emission factor model used to calculate emission rates from offroad mobile sources (e.g., construction equipment, agricultural equipment). The off-road diesel emission factors used by CalEEMod® are based on the CARB OFFROAD2011 program.

EMFAC201745 is the emission factor model used in CalEEMod® to calculate emissions rates from on-road vehicles (e.g., passenger vehicles). EMFAC2017 has been superseded by EMFAC2021. In order to allow for a more accurate representation of mobile source operational emissions associated with the Project, operational mobile source emission factors were estimated using EMFAC2021. These emissions factors were then used to estimate mobile source operational emissions based on CalEEMod® methodology and defaults along with Project specific values where available.

In addition, CalEEMod® contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if regional default values are not defined. Ramboll used default factors for the Fresno County area for the emissions inventory, unless otherwise noted in the methodology descriptions below.

4.2 Construction Emissions
This section describes the calculation of criteria air pollutant emissions from construction activities at the Project site. While the exact construction schedule and equipment mix may vary from the current analysis, the emissions are not expected to be higher than that calculated given the conservative assumptions included in the analysis.

The major construction phases included in this analysis are:
• Demolition: involves removing buildings or structures. • Site Preparation: involves clearing vegetation (grubbing and tree/stump removal) and removing stones and other unwanted material or debris prior to grading. • Grading: involves the cut and fill of land to ensure the proper base and slope for the construction foundation.
• Paving: involves the laying of concrete or asphalt such as in parking lots or roads. • Building Construction: involves the construction of structures and buildings. • Architectural Coating: involves parking and lane striping The proposed schedule for constructing the Project is shown in Table 4-1. Constructionrelated emissions of ROGs, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 were estimated using CalEEMod®.

PM emissions are composed of exhaust emissions and fugitive emissions. Exhaust emissions are typically given out by a combustion engine of on-road vehicles and/or off-road equipment. Fugitive emissions are PM dust suspended in the air by wind action and 44 CARB. 2011. Off Road Mobile Source Emission factors. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory. Accessed: February 2022. 45 CARB. 2015. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
20 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
construction related activities. Default on-site equipment lists in CalEEMod® supplemented with Project-specific material movement inputs were used for the various construction phases.

4.2.1 Emissions from Construction Equipment
The emission calculations associated with construction equipment are from off-road equipment engine use based on the equipment list and phase length, and on-road vehicle trips and phase length.

Since the majority of the off-road construction equipment used for construction projects are diesel fueled, CalEEMod® methodology assumes all of the equipment operates on diesel fuel.

The calculations include the running exhaust emissions from off-road equipment. Since the equipment is assumed to be diesel, there are no starting emissions associated with the equipment, as these are de minimis for diesel-fueled equipment. CalEEMod® calculates the exhaust emissions based on default values for horsepower and load factor from CARB’s OFFROAD2011.46
Project construction would include on-site equipment during grading/excavation and site preparation that generates fugitive dust. The construction-related equipment mix assumptions are project-specific. See Table 4-2 for the construction equipment by construction phase. The combustion emissions from this equipment were calculated using CalEEMod®; the fugitive dust emissions from this equipment were calculated using the quantity of material moved and AP-42 emissions factors. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from fugitive dust will be controlled by watering consistent with Regulation VIII (Rules 8011 through 8081). For purposes of this analysis, CalEEMod® defaults assume watering the construction site twice a day reduces the fugitive dust emissions by 55%. Additionally, construction equipment greater than 50 hp used at the site shall meet USEPA Tier 3 emission standards for PM10 and PM2.5 and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices.

4.2.2 Emissions from On-Road Construction Trips
Construction generates on-road vehicle criteria air pollutant emissions from personal vehicles for worker and vendor commuting.

These emissions are calculated in CalEEMod® based on the number of trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) along with emission factors from EMFAC2017. The numbers of worker and vendor trips represent defaults from CalEEMod® based on the construction equipment to be used. The number of haul trips was estimated based on the volume of soil to be imported/exported (Table 4-3) and the square footage to be demolished (Table 4-4).

4.2.3 Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust contributes to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions and is generated by the various construction activities occurring at the Project site including entrained road dust, grading, demolition, and truck loading.

Entrained road dust is generated by vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads. Emission factors for entrained road dust are on a “per mile” basis. In CalEEMod®, entrained road dust emission factors are based on the equations presented in the Paved Roads and Unpaved 46 SCAQMD. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model® User’s Guide, Appendix A. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
21 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
Roads chapters of USEPA’s AP-42 and are then multiplied by the total VMT for Project-related trips. Emissions from entrained road dust were estimated using CalEEMod® and are presented in Appendix A.

Fugitive dust emissions from bulldozing equipment (i.e., rubber-tired dozers), grading equipment (i.e., graders, rubber-tired dozers, and scrapers), and demolition activity occur during the Project construction. In addition, truck loading activities would generate fugitive dust emissions. The construction material movement and demolition assumptions are presented in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4, respectively. Emissions from these sources were estimated using CalEEMod® and are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.4 Architectural Coating
VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings.

CalEEMod® was used to estimate VOC evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings and these emissions are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.5 Paving
CalEEMod® was used to estimate the VOC off-gassing emissions associated with asphalt paving. The emissions associated with paving are presented in Appendix A.

4.2.6 Total Construction Emissions
The annual and daily criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction are shown in Table 4-5. As shown in Table 4-5, annual and daily criteria air pollutant emissions from construction of the Project are below the SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

4.3 Operational Emissions
This section describes the calculation of criteria air pollutant emissions from Project operational activities. Operational emissions are evaluated for the first year of Project operation in 2023.

4.3.1 Area Sources
Area sources are those emissions that are generally too small to be uniquely identified as point sources and are thus generally aggregated as a group. CalEEMod® estimates emissions for the following sources, which are included under the category of “area” sources:
landscaping equipment (e.g., lawn mowers), consumer products, and architectural coatings.

Criteria air pollutant emissions due to natural gas combustion in buildings, could also be considered area sources, but are reported by CalEEMod® in the emissions associated with building energy use (described below).

The criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the Project were calculated using CalEEMod® defaults and can be viewed in Appendix A.

4.3.2 Energy Sources
Criteria air pollutant emissions are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which natural gas is typically used as an energy source. Combustion of fossil fuels, such as natural gas, emits criteria air pollutants directly into the atmosphere. Climate Zone 11 was selected based on the CEC forecast climate zone map shown in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide. The analysis assumes that the Project’s land uses accord to the 2019 Title 24 Standards, as that code cycle became effective on January 1, 2020. To calculate the total building natural gas input for the Project, Ramboll utilized default values provided in CalEEMod®, which are based on the Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS).

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
22 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
Criteria air pollutant emissions from the natural gas consumption were estimated in CalEEMod® and can be viewed in Appendix A.

4.3.3 Operational Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing
Emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing mainly occur during loading, breathing, refueling, spillage, and from hose permeation. Emission factors were obtained from SJVAPCD staff for EVR Phase I and EVR Phase II installed underground tank. These emissions which are permitted through the SJVAPCD are presented in Table 4-6.

4.3.4 Mobile Sources
The criteria air pollutant emissions associated with on-road mobile sources are generated from customers and delivery trucks travelling to and from the Project site. The emissions associated with on-road mobile sources include running, idling and starting exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, tire wear, brake wear, and entrained road dust. Running emissions are dependent on VMT. Starting and evaporative emissions are associated with the number of starts or time between vehicle uses and the assumptions used in determining these values are described below. In addition, a portion of warehouse delivery trucks will be equipped with transportation refrigeration units (TRUs), which result in emissions when the warehouse delivery truck is docked at the site. Ramboll calculated mobile source emissions using the trip rates and trip length information based on analyses conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc (Kittelson).

The analysis includes the reductions from adopted regulatory programs, which are accounted for within the EMFAC2021 model:
• AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) required CARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. CalEEMod® and EMFAC2021 include emission reductions for non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2017 – 2025.
• The ACC program, introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2015 through 2025. CalEEMod® and EMFAC2021 include reductions associated with this regulation that are represented in this analysis. While ACC focuses on the reduction of GHG emissions, it is anticipated that this regulation would also help reduce criteria air pollutants.
• The USEPA/NHTSA advanced fuel economy and GHG standards (Phase 1) were adopted in 2011 for medium and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2014-2018.47 This Heavy-Duty National Program is intended to reduce fuel use and GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, semi-trucks, pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between. CalEEMod® and EMFAC2021 include reductions associated with this regulation that are represented in this analysis. 47 USEPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2011. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011- 09-15/pdf/2011-20740.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
23 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
• The USEPA/NHTSA advanced fuel economy and GHG standards (Phase 2) were adopted in 2016 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks for model years 2018 and beyond.48 The Phase 2 program includes technology-advancing standards that substantially reduce GHG and criteria pollutant emissions and fuel consumption resulting in an ambitious, yet achievable, program that will allow manufacturers to meet the applicable standards over time, at reasonable cost, through a mix of different technologies. The Phase 2 program’s standards will be phased in, beginning with model year 2021 and culminating with model year 2027. 49
In November 2019, CARB released EMFAC off-model adjustment factors to account for the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One.50 The SAFE Rule has been incorporated into EMFAC2021, which is used in this analysis.

4.3.4.1 Calculating Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile source emissions calculation requires trip rates and trip lengths for each different trip type in the Project (e.g., passenger vehicles and delivery trucks).

The following sections describe the methodology to derive the necessary inputs. The mobile source calculations were performed using Excel following CalEEMod® methodology in order to capture the Project’s mobile emissions.

The Project emissions inventory accounts for the moving of the Costco Warehouse from 4500 W Shaw Avenue to the new Project location (i.e., W. Herndon Avenue and N. Riverside Drive). It is reasonably foreseeable that the 4500 W Shaw Avenue location will be backfilled with a shopping center use, which will have lower mobile emissions compared to the current Costco Warehouse operations. The reduction in mobile emissions from the removal of the Costco Warehouse at 4500 W Shaw Avenue is incorporated into the Project emissions inventory. The VMT and trip rate assumed for the change at 4500 W Shaw Avenue and Project location are detailed in Appendix B.
a) Trip Generation Rates
The trip generation rates for the Project were based on Kittelson data. The trips for the northeast corner of W. Herndon Ave. and N. Riverside Dr (Herndon/Riverside) and 4500 W Shaw Ave are shown in Appendix B in Table B-1a and Table B-1b, respectively. b) Trip Lengths
Trip lengths for passenger vehicles, fuel delivery trucks, and warehouse delivery trucks were provided by Kittelson. The trip length for the MDO delivery trucks is based on the average routed round trip length for Fresno MDO deliveries. These trip lengths for Herndon/Riverside and 4500 W Shaw Ave are presented in Appendix B, Table B-1a and Table B-1b, respectively.
48 USEPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2016. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016- 10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.
49 The emission reductions attributable to Phase 2 of the regulations for medium- and heavy-duty trucks were not included in the Project's emissions inventory due to the difficulty in quantifying the reductions. Excluding these reductions results in a more conservative (i.e., higher) estimate of emissions for the Project. 50 CARB. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
24 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
c) Fleet Mix
The fleet mixes derived based on CalEEMod® and EMFAC2021 were used to determine the mix of light-duty vehicles used for member vehicles and employee vehicles. The MDO delivery trucks, fuel delivery trucks, and warehouse delivery trucks were assumed to all be heavy-heavy-duty trucks. The fleet mixes were used to calculate the fleet-weighted average emission factor for each vehicle type. The fleet mixes for the operational mobile trips are shown in Table B-2 of Appendix B.
d) Transportation Refrigeration Units
The Project includes Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), which are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including truck vans, semi-truck trailers, shipping containers, and railcars. These TRUs account for approximately 15% of the warehouse delivery trucks. This analysis assumes that TRUs are plugged in at the loading dock. Emission factors for TRUs were obtained from OFFROAD2021 for TRU trailers in Fresno County and are presented in Table 4-7.
e) On-Road Mobile Source Emission Factors
Exhaust, evaporative, tire wear, and brake wear emission factors were obtained from EMFAC2021 for Fresno County and are presented in Appendix B, Tables B-3 through B-5.

Emission factors for passenger vehicles were calculated as a fleet-weighted average.

Entrained road dust emission factors were calculated following guidance in the CalEEMod® User’s Guide, Appendix A, which is based on AP-42, Section 13.2.1 for vehicles traveling on paved roads. Entrained road dust emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Appendix B, Table B-6.

4.3.4.2 Mobile Source Emissions
The emission factors for each vehicle type were calculated from EMFAC2021 model outputs.

The fleet mixes from Table B-2 were used to form member vehicle weighted emission factors and employee vehicle weighted emission factors. The emission factors used to estimate mobile emissions from running exhaust, running losses, tire wear, brake wear (Table B-3), and entrained road dust (Table B-6) are on a “per mile” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated VMT for each vehicle type. The emission factors for starting exhaust and non-running evaporative processes (Table B-4) are on a “per trip” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated number of trips for each vehicle type. The emission factors used to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions from idling (Table B-5) are on a “per minute of idling” basis and thus the emissions were calculated by multiplying these factors by the estimated idle duration for each vehicle type.

Member vehicles used the member vehicle weighted emission factors, while warehouse, fuel station, and car wash employees and MDO driver and warehouse employee vehicles used the employee vehicle weighted emission factors. The overall mobile source emissions are shown in Appendix B, Table B-7a and B-7b.

4.3.5 Total Operational Emissions
Table 4-8a summarizes the Project operational criteria air pollutant emissions from permitted and non-permitted sources on an annual basis. Table 4-8b summarizes the Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
25 Air Quality Emissions Inventory
Project operational on-site daily criteria air pollutant emissions from permitted and nonpermitted sources.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
26 Health Risk Assessment

5. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
This HRA evaluates the estimated cancer risk, non-cancer chronic hazard index (HIC), and acute hazard index (HIA) associated with construction and operation of the Project to address the SJVACPD Significance Thresholds.

5.1 Estimated Air Concentrations
To evaluate the health risks and concentration of air toxics in the surrounding area, SJVAPCD recommends estimating concentrations using air pollution dispersion modeling. The methodologies used to evaluate emissions for the Project are based on the most recent SJVAPCD Modeling and Health Risk Assessment Guidelines and the most recent Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines from Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).51,52,53
Off-site air concentrations of TACs from Project emissions are estimated using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency regulatory air dispersion model (AERMOD). Details on the inputs and methodology used in the dispersion modeling are discussed further in the sections below.

5.1.1 Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
Ramboll evaluated excess lifetime cancer risk and HIC for off-site receptors from Project construction emissions. In particular, the construction HRA assesses the lifetime cancer risk and HIC associated with DPM emissions from off-road diesel construction equipment and hauling and vendor trucks during construction of the Project. Diesel exhaust, a complex mixture that includes hundreds of individual constituents, is identified by the State of California as a known carcinogen.54,55 Under California regulatory guidelines, DPM is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a whole. We conservatively assumed that all PM10 from diesel fueled equipment and trucks is DPM. Gasoline vehicles were not included in the HRA per the direction from SJVAPCD.56
Additionally, Ramboll evaluated the lifetime cancer risk, HIC, and HIA analyses resulting from Project operation, which includes DPM emissions associated with Costco delivery trucks travel and idling, warehouse diesel delivery truck travel and idling, MDO diesel delivery truck travel and idling, and TAC emissions (e.g., benzene) from gasoline transfer and dispensing.

Costco members’ vehicles are assumed to be gasoline-fueled, hybrid, and electric vehicles.

Therefore, TAC emissions associated with Costco members’ vehicles are not included in the 51 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. August. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/Tox_Resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf Accessed: February 2022. 52 SJVAPCD. Health Risk Assessment Guidance Document for AB2588 and CEQA. Document provided by the SJVAPCD staff, Kyle Melching, via email dated August 4, 2021. 53 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 54 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 1998. Findings of the Scientific Review Panel on The Report on Diesel Exhaust, as adopted at the Panel’s April 22, 1998, meeting.
55 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2018. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May.

Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed: May 2021. 56 Email communication with SJVAPCD staff, Diana Walker, on August 17, 2021.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
27 Health Risk Assessment
operational HRA based on the direction from the District.57 Detailed emission calculations for the construction and operational HRAs are presented in Appendix C and Appendix D.

5.1.2 Air Dispersion Modeling Methodology
Ramboll used AERMOD Version 21112 to estimate ambient air concentrations and evaluate the health risks of TACs at off-site receptors. 58,59 For each receptor location, the model generates air concentrations (or air dispersion factors if unit emissions [i.e., 1 g/s] were modeled) that result from emissions from multiple sources.

Air dispersion models such as AERMOD require a variety of inputs such as source parameters, meteorological data, topography information, and receptor parameters. When site-specific information was unknown, default parameter sets that are designed to produce conservative (i.e., overestimates of) air concentrations were used.

5.1.2.1 AERMOD
AERMOD has been approved for use by USEPA, CARB, and SJVAPCD, and incorporates multiple variables in its algorithms including:
• Meteorological data representative of surface and upper air conditions; • Local terrain data to account for elevation changes; and • Physical specification of emission sources including information such as:
 Location;
 Release height; and
 Source dimensions.

Dispersion model averaging times are specified based on the averaging times of ambient air quality standards and the air quality significance thresholds established by the appropriate regulatory agencies. For the Project construction HRA, the PERIOD averaging time (average concentration for the 5-year meteorological data set) was used to calculate chronic (longterm) health effects. No acute non-cancer toxicity has been identified for DPM.60 Thus, an acute HI from Project construction was not calculated.

For the Project operational HRA, the 1-hour averaging time was used to evaluate acute (short-term) effects and the PERIOD averaging time (average concentration for the 5-year meteorological data set) was used to calculate chronic (long-term) health effects. 57 Ibid.
58 USEPA. 2021. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). August. Available at:
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.
59 USEPA. 2017. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, Appendix W.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. January. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/clean-air-actpermit-modeling-guidance. Accessed: February 2022. 60 CARB. 2018. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. August, https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
28 Health Risk Assessment
The following other options in AERMOD were selected for use in this analysis. The regulatory default option was selected based the SJVAPCD modeling recommendations,61 which established the settings for variables such as rural modeling dispersion option, receptor heights, off-site receptor grid spacing, and emissions source parameters. The air dispersion model was run using a unit emission factor approach. The model output based on a unit emission factor approach was incorporated into a post-processing step with the calculated emission rates to estimate the air concentrations at each receptor.

5.1.2.2 Source Characterization
For the Project construction HRA, DPM emissions from haul trucks and vendor vehicles traveled on the roadway links within 0.25 miles of the site boundary were modeled using line-volume sources in the air dispersion model. Volume sources covering the planned construction areas were used to represent DPM exhaust emissions from the off-road equipment for the construction modeling. 20 meters-by-20 meters volume sources62 are used to characterize construction off-road equipment with a release height of 5 meters, an initial lateral dimension of 2.3 (length of side/2.15), and an initial vertical dimension of

1.4 m. Modeled construction emission source locations are shown in Figure 1.

For the Project operational analysis, DPM emissions from mobile sources traveling on the roadway links within 0.25 miles of the site boundary were modeled as line-volume sources.

Point sources were used to represent on-site idling for fuel delivery trucks, warehouse delivery trucks, and MDO delivery trucks, as well as transport refrigeration unit (TRU) emissions when in use by warehouse delivery trucks at the warehouse loading docks. The GDF emission sources were modeled as point sources (loading and breathing emissions) and volume sources (refueling, hose permeation, and spillage). Modeled operational emission source locations are shown in Figure 2. Detailed source parameters and their bases were provided in Appendix E.

5.1.2.3 Meteorology
SJVAPCD provides AERMOD model-ready meteorological data sets for use in air quality and risk impact analyses in the SJVAB. SJVAPCD’s Fresno, CA (Station ID 93193) meteorological data set was selected based on that station’s close geographic proximity to the Project. The SJVAPCD meteorological data set for January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017 was used for the analysis.63 The meteorological station location is presented in Figure 3.

5.1.2.4 Land Use
The land uses surrounding the Project alignment are primarily a mix of developed residential and commercial areas. AERMOD offers the option of using either rural or urban dispersion characteristics. Selection of rural or urban dispersion characteristics depends on the predominant land use within a three-kilometer radius of the site. SJVAPCD recommends that if 50% or more of the land use types within the three-kilometer radius is classified as heavy 61 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 62 The modeled volume is an approximate representation of the area where construction activity may occur. Slight changes to the exact boundary of the construction activity area are not anticipated to meaningfully alter the analysis findings.
63 SJVAPCD. Meteorological Data. Available at: ftp://ftp2.valleyair.org/public/Modeling/Meteorological_Data.

Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
29 Health Risk Assessment
industrial, light/moderate industrial, and/or commercial, then urban dispersion characteristics must be chosen for all Project emissions sources. Otherwise, the rural dispersion characteristics must be chosen.64 Ramboll determined that less than 50% of the land use within the three-kilometer radius is classified as the urban land use types, and rural dispersion characteristics were therefore used for the Project.

Data specifying terrain elevations of sources and receptors are imported into the model.

Elevations are based on National Elevation Datasets (NEDs) and consist of an array of regularly spaced points on a horizontal plane for which an elevation is specified. NED 1-arc second data used in this analysis were obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS).65

5.1.2.5 Emission Rates
Emissions were modeled using the χ/Q (“chi over q”) method, such that each source group has a unit emission rate (i.e., 1 gram per second [g/s]), and the model estimates dispersion factors (with units of [µg/m3]/[g/s]). Actual emissions were multiplied by the dispersion factors to obtain concentrations.

For the Project construction analysis, emissions from all modeled construction sources including off-road construction equipment, off-site vendor vehicle travel, and off-site hauling vehicle travel – were assumed to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and 6 days per week for the Project construction duration of one year.

For the Project operational analysis, warehouse delivery trucks and TRUs are expected to operate between 2AM and 1PM, 7 days per week. Emissions from gasoline refueling, hose permeation, and spillage were modeled from 6 AM to 10 PM based on the anticipated operating schedule of the gas station. Emissions from fuel delivery trucks, MDO delivery trucks, and gasoline tank loading and breathing loss were conservatively modeled 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

5.1.2.6 Receptors
In order to evaluate health impacts to off-site receptors, nearby sensitive receptor populations were identified. SJVAPCD identifies the following as off-site sensitive receptors:
schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, and adult/elderly care facilities.66 The following receptors are included in the AERMOD modeling per SJVAPCD guidance:67 • 25 m x 25 m from the site boundary to 100 m from the site boundary; • 50 m x 50 m from 100 m to 250 m from the site boundary; • 100 m x 100 m from 250 m to 500 m from the site boundary; • 250 m x 250 m from 500 m to 1,000 m from the site boundary; • 500 m x 500 m from 1,000 m to 2,000 m from the site boundary; 64 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 65 USGS National Elevation Dataset. Available at: https://www.mrlc.gov/tools. Accessed: February 2022. 66 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 67 Ibid.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
30 Health Risk Assessment
• Coarse Grid 100 m x 100 m from 200 m to ¼-mile from the Project;68 and • Discrete sensitive receptors.

Sensitive receptor locations within a 2,000 meter radius of the modeled site boundary69 were procured from a third-party that identified these receptors.70 The locations of all receptors are illustrated on Figure 4. Receptor heights were assumed to be ground-level based on SJVAPCD guidance.71

5.2 Risk Characterization Methods
The Project construction and operational HRA’s was conducted in accordance with SJVAPCD risk assessment guidelines.72 These guidelines are based on OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.73 The 2015 OEHHA Guidelines include various updates that are protective of human health, particularly related to estimating potential risks in infants, children, and other sensitive receptors. Lifetime cancer risk, HIC, and HIA were calculated at each receptor. TAC emissions and air dispersion results were input into HARP, version 21081, the OEHHA-recommended program for completing an HRA. Specific steps taken to complete the HRA, such as exposure assessment, dose-response, and risk characterization are described in more detail below.

5.3 Exposure Assessment
To calculate health impacts for comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds, this report assesses risk to residential, worker, and sensitive receptors. The exposure rate for the residential scenario is more conservative than those for other sensitive receptor types (i.e., school child, daycare child, and patients) as residents have the highest exposure frequency, exposure time, and exposure duration, thus for this analysis, sensitive receptors were evaluated using residential exposure assumptions.

Exposure Assumptions: The exposure duration, pathways, exposure analysis methods (e.g., OEHHA 95th High End Method) evaluated in the HRA used to estimate excess lifetime cancer risks for exposed populations were selected in accordance with risk assessment guidelines from OEHHA and SJVAPCD.74,75 A deposition rate of 0.05 m/s was used for multipathway analysis. For construction HRA, we conservatively assume that exposure begins at birth (age 0), rather than at the third trimester due to higher overall intake of DPM.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 EDR. 2021. EDR Offsite Receptor Report.
71 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed: January 2022. 72 SJVAPCD. Health Risk Assessment Guidance Document for AB2588 and CEQA. Document provided by the SJVAPCD staff, Kyle Melching, via email dated August 4, 2021. 73 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 74 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: February 2022. 75 SJVAPCD. 2006. Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/tox_resources/Modeling%20Guidance.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
31 Health Risk Assessment
Calculation of Intake: The dose estimated for each exposure pathway is a function of the concentration of a chemical and the intake of that chemical. The intake factor for inhalation, IFinh, can be calculated as follows:

IFinh = DBR * FAH * EF * ED * CF
AT
Where:

IFinh = Intake Factor for Inhalation (m3/kg-day)
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)
FAH = Frequency of time at Home (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
CF = Conversion Factor, 0.001 (m3/L)
AT = Averaging Time (days)
The chemical intake or dose is estimated by multiplying the inhalation intake factor, IFinh, by the chemical concentration in air, Ci. When coupled with the chemical concentration, this calculation is mathematically equivalent to the dose algorithm given in the current OEHHA Hot Spots guidance.76

5.3.1 Age Sensitivity Factors
As a conservative and health-protective measure, the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks for a resident will be adjusted using age sensitivity factors (ASFs) that account for an “anticipated special sensitivity to carcinogens” of infants and children as recommended in the OEHHA 2009 Technical Support Document and OEHHA 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines.77,78 Cancer risk estimates were weighted by a factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to two years of age and by a factor of three for exposures that occur from two years through 15 years of age. No weighting factor (i.e., an ASF of one, which is equivalent to no adjustment) is applied to ages 16 and older.

5.3.2 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment characterizes the relationship between the magnitude of exposure and the nature and magnitude of adverse health effects that may result from such exposure.

For purposes of calculating exposure criteria to be used in risk assessments, adverse health effects are classified into two broad categories – cancer and non-cancer endpoints. Toxicity values that are used to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at 76 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Appendix D. February.

Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendices.pdf. Accessed: September 2021. 77 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2009. Technical Support Document for Cancer Potency Factors: Methodologies for Derivation, Listing of Available Values, and Adjustment to Allow for Early Life Stage Exposures. May. Available online at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/technical-support-document-cancer-potency-factors-2009. Accessed: September 2021.
78 Cal/EPA, OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Appendix D: February.

Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015gmappendices.pdf. Accessed: September 2021.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
32 Health Risk Assessment
different exposure levels are identified as part of the toxicity assessment component of a risk assessment. Toxicity factors in the latest HARP Health Database,79 integrated into the HARP program, were used in this HRA. The HARP program contains the most up-to-date listing of available inhalation and oral cancer potency factors (CPFs), chronic inhalation and oral RELs, and acute RELs approved by California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) for use in health risk assessments.

5.4 Risk Characterization
This section describes the methods used to estimate potential adverse effects associated with off-site exposures to chemicals emitted from the Project. The results of the HRA are presented in Section 5.5. HARP was used to estimate carcinogenic risks and non-cancer HIs associated with potential exposures to potential emissions from the Project’s construction and operational emissions.

5.4.1 Estimation of Cancer Risks
Excess lifetime cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens. The estimated risk is expressed as a unitless probability. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). For carcinogenic chemicals, both inhalation and non-inhalation pathways must be considered, using the CPFs in HARP. Total risk is the sum of risks attributable to each chemical considered by each pathway.

The equation used to calculate the potential excess lifetime cancer risk for the inhalation pathway is as follows:

𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛ℎ ൌ 𝐶𝑖 𝑥 𝐶𝐹 𝑥 𝐼𝐹𝑖𝑛ℎ 𝑥 𝐶𝑃𝐹𝑖 𝑥 𝐴𝑆𝐹
Where:

Riskinh = Cancer risk; the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of inhalation exposure to a particular potential carcinogen (unitless)
Ci = Annual average air concentration for chemical (µg/m3) CF = Conversion factor (mg/µg)
IFinh = Intake factor for inhalation (m3/kg-day)
CPFi = Cancer potency factor for chemical
(mg chemical/kg body weight-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor (unitless)
A similar equation, using oral dose and the oral CPF, is used to calculate risks from oral exposure. Oral cancer risks include dermal absorption, incidental ingestion of soil, and mother’s milk. HARP default exposure parameters were used, as described above. 79 The latest HARP Health Database is available from ARB here: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harp.htm.

Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
33 Health Risk Assessment

5.4.1.1 Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Indices The potential for exposure to result in adverse chronic non-cancer effects is evaluated by comparing the estimated annual average air concentration (which is equivalent to the average daily air concentration) to the non-cancer chronic reference exposure level (cREL) for each chemical. When calculated for a single chemical, the comparison yields a ratio termed a hazard quotient (HQ). To evaluate the potential for adverse chronic non-cancer health effects from simultaneous exposure to multiple chemicals, the HQs for all chemicals are summed, yielding a HI:

𝐻𝑄𝑖 ൌ 𝐶𝑖 / 𝑐𝑅𝐸𝐿
𝐻𝐼 ൌ ∑ 𝐻𝑄
Where:

HI = Hazard index
HQi = Chronic hazard quotient for chemical i
Ci = Annual average concentration of chemical i (µg/m3) cRELi = Chronic noncancer reference exposure level for chemical i (µg/m³)
Estimation of non-inhalation chronic health effects uses a similar method, but the annual average air concentration is replaced by the dose calculated by HARP using the exposure parameters mentioned above, and the appropriate non-inhalation REL is used.

Estimation of an HI for each target organ (also referred to as a segregation of HI by target organ analysis) is recommended by OEHHA because the non-cancer effects of chemicals with different target organs are generally not additive.

5.5 Health Risk Results
Using the health risk assessment options for HARP detailed in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 for the construction HRA and operational HRA, respectively, the potential health impacts during the construction and operation of the Project were estimated at the maximally impacted residential, worker, and sensitive receptors. The cancer risk, HIC, and HIA results of the construction and operational health risk assessment are presented in Table 5-3.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
34 CO Hotspots

6. CO HOTSPOTS
Mobile-source impacts occur on two basic scales of motion. Regionally, Project-related travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the VMT within the local airshed and the SJVAB. Locally, Project traffic will be added to the City’s roadway system. There is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in mobile emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotspots in the basin is steadily decreasing.

Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots.

To verify that the Project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted. The Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kittelson evaluated the level of service (LOS) (i.e., increased congestion) impacts at intersections affected by the Project.

The potential for CO hotspots was evaluated based on the results of the traffic analysis.

6.1 Regulatory Background
The City of Fresno’s General Plan and Development Code Update was reviewed to determine if the Project would require a site-specific hotspot analysis. The localized impacts to ambient CO concentrations from peak traffic volumes within the City were modeled using the CALINE4 CO Hotspots model. It was determined that tripling the maximum traffic volume within the City during the peak hour – 12,000 trips – resulted in an 8-hour CO concentration of 6 ppm, which falls below the 8-hour CAAQS of 9.0 ppm.80 Because that volume of traffic is very unlikely to occur, it was determined that CO hotspot modeling is not required for new projects unless roadway intersection traffic volumes exceed 36,000 peak hour trips.

Further, SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts indicates that the project would result in no potential to create a violation of the CO standard if neither of the following SJVAPCD screening criteria are met at any of the intersections affected by the project:81
• A traffic study for the project indicates that the LOS on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to LOS E or F. • A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity. 80 City of Fresno. 2014. General Plan and Development Code Update. Available at:
https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Sec-05-03-Air-Quality-MEIR.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.
81 SJVAPCD. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQI.pdf. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
35 CO Hotspots

6.2 Traffic Study Findings
The Traffic Study82 prepared for this project evaluated the LOS impacts at six existing intersections and three proposed intersections resulting from new roadways for site access.

Kittelson evaluated eight scenarios, which are summarized in Appendix G:
• Scenario 1: Existing Conditions (2021),
• Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2021)
• Scenario 3: Existing Plus Project Conditions with Off-Site Improvements (2021) • Scenario 4: Future Conditions (2042),
• Scenario 5: Future Plus Project Conditions (2042),
• Scenario 6: Future Plus Project with Reclassification Conditions with Off-Site Improvements (2042)
• Scenario 7: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of W. Herndon Ave. (2042), and
• Scenario 8: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of W. Herndon Ave. with Off-Site Improvements (2042).

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

Based on the analysis performed by Kittelson, the LOS impacts show that the following intersections have the potential to reduce to LOS E or F with the Project:
• Scenario 2: Existing Plus Project Conditions (2021)
 Intersection No. 2 (N Riverside Dr/W Fir Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours  Intersection No. 3 (N Riverside Dr/W Herndon Ave): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours  Intersection No. 4 (N Golden State Blvd/W Herndon Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours • Scenario 5: Future Plus Project Conditions (2042):
 Intersection No. 2 (N Riverside Dr/W Fir Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours  Intersection No. 3 (N Riverside Dr/W Herndon Ave): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hours  Intersection No. 4 (N Golden State Blvd/W Herndon Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours • Scenario 7: Future Plus Project Conditions without Reclassification of W. Herndon Ave. (2042)
 Intersection No. 2 (N Riverside Dr/W Fir Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours  Intersection No. 3 (N Riverside Dr/W Herndon Ave): AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour  Intersection No. 4 (N Golden State Blvd/W Herndon Ave): PM and Saturday peak hours For these intersections listed above, the total traffic volumes are less than the 36,000 vehicles per hour threshold determined in the General Plan. Further, the Project satisfies the remaining SJVAPCD screening criterion because there are no existing LOS F on any of the 82 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2023. Fresno Costco Relocation Transportation Impact Analysis. May.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
36 CO Hotspots
studied intersections. Therefore, the Project would not result in the potential to create a violation of the CO standard.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
37 Project Inventory in Context

7. PROJECT INVENTORY IN CONTEXT
This section assesses the significance of the Project’s emissions for purposes of CEQA.

7.1 Threshold 1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? CARB has developed a three-step approach to determine project conformity with the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP):

1. Determination that an AQAP is being implemented in the area where the project is being proposed. SJVAPCD has implemented the current, modified 2016 8-hour AQAP as approved by CARB and approved by USEPA for the 2008 8-hour O3 standard.

2. The proposed project must be consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable AQAP. The Fresno County 2050 growth Projections83 for the 2018 Public Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)84,85 provides for future employment/population factors.

3. The project must contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures. The Project incorporates various policy and rule-required implementation measures that would reduce related emissions.

As discussed in Section 2.3, SJVAPCD’s air quality plans rely on information from CARB and Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and Fresno COG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the cities and Fresno County as part of the development of their general plans. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plan(s) would be consistent with the growth projections of the SIP because associated emissions of criteria pollutants in a designated non-attainment area would be accounted for in these air quality plans. If a project proposes development that is greater than anticipated in Fresno COG’s growth projections, the project would be in conflict with the regional air quality attainment plans and SIP and could potentially result in a significant air quality impact.

The Project is expected to serve the existing population of the area by providing more convenient access to Costco services, and thus it is not expected to lead to population growth. Therefore, it is consistent with the growth projections developed by Fresno COG for the area. The Project also does not involve a change in land use type that would conflict with that established in the City of Fresno General Plan.

The Project shows conformity with CARB’s three step approach and the Project growth was anticipated by the Fresno COG RTP/SCS and incorporated into the AQAP. Implementation of 83 Fresno County Council of Governments, 2017. Fresno County 2050 Growth Projections. Available at:
https://2ave3l244ex63mgdyc1u2mfp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/publications/RTP/2018_RTP/Fresno_COG_2050_Projections_Final_Report_050417.pdf.

Accessed: February 2022.
84 Fresno County Council of Governments, 2018. Fresno County 2018 Regional Transportation. Available at:
https://www.fresnocog.org/project/regional-transportation-plan-rtp/. Accessed: February 2022. 85 The 2022 RTP/SCS is in development and 70% complete, but the final adoption is not planned until June 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
38 Project Inventory in Context
rule-required measures would ensure that the Project would not obstruct an air quality plan during construction or operation.

7.2 Threshold 2
Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Per Table 2-2, the Project region is a designated non-attainment area for ozone (the State 1-hour O3; federal and State 8-hour O3) and particulate matter (State PM10; federal and State PM2.5). Ozone precursors include VOC and NOX. As discussed in Section 4, estimated emissions for the Project show that the annual emissions for construction (Table 4-5) and on-site operations (Table 4-8a and Table 4-8b) are less than the SJVAPCD significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. For annual operational criteria air pollutant emissions, the NOx and PM10 are above the SJVAPCD significance thresholds prior to compliance with Rule 9510. Through compliance with Rule 9510, the operational PM10 and NOx emissions would be below the significance thresholds.

7.3 Threshold 3
Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

7.3.1 Health Risk Thresholds
The construction-related and operational health risk assessment results were used to assess if the Project would expose off-site receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed in Section 5, the construction analysis evaluates the health risk resulting from off-road equipment DPM emissions during construction of the Project, as well as the DPM emissions from hauling and vendor trucks. The operational analysis evaluates the health risk resulting from DPM emissions from TRU usage, travel and idling for fuel delivery trucks, warehouse delivery trucks, and MDO delivery trucks, as well as TAC emissions from gasoline transfer and dispensing.

The results of the analyses show that the lifetime cancer risk, HIC, and acute hazard index of the Project-related construction and operational emissions are less than the SJVAPCD significance thresholds (Table 5-3).

7.3.2 CO Hotspots
Per Section 6, the Project would not result in a CO “hot spot” and a CO “hot spots” analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection in the Project area would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

7.3.3 Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Significant project criteria air pollutant emissions could potentially lead to increased concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere and could result in health effects due to the increased emissions. The following section describes the mechanism by which project-related emissions could increase the concentrations of criteria air pollutants in the atmosphere and qualitatively describes the potential health effects.

The ambient concentration of criteria pollutants is a result of complex atmospheric chemistry and emissions of pollutant precursors and direct emissions. NOX and VOC are precursors to ozone and, and NOx, VOC, and SOX are precursors to secondarily formed PM2.5. Chemical and Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
39 Project Inventory in Context
physical processes transform some of these precursors to the criteria pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere. The calculation of ozone and secondary PM2.5 concentrations resulting from precursors is dependent on the spatial location of the criteria air pollutant emissions and how the emissions are dispersed in the atmosphere. Source apportionment, or the practice of deriving information about pollution sources and the amount they contribute to ambient air pollution levels, is also influenced by the meteorological conditions of the project location.

There are several variables which determine whether emissions of air pollutants from the project move and disperse in the atmosphere in a manner in which concentrations of criteria pollutants would become elevated and result in health impacts. A specific mass of precursor emissions does not equate to an equivalent concentration of the resultant ozone or secondary particulate matter in that area. The resulting concentration of criteria pollutants is influenced by sunlight, other pollutants in the air, complex reactions, and transport. The dispersion is based on the meteorological conditions of the source (the project), local terrain (elevation profile), and the height and size of the source. The surrounding land use, wind direction and wind speed will influence the location where the project emissions disperse.

Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of ozone or PM formed by emissions of precursors.

The resulting health effects are further based on a complex relationship of multiple variables and factors. The calculated health effects are dependent upon the concentrations of pollutants to which the receptors are exposed, the number and type of exposure pathways for a receptor, and the intake parameters for a receptor, which vary based upon age and sensitivity (i.e. presence of pre-existing conditions). Health effects would be more likely for individuals with greater susceptibility to exposures, and also dependent on the location of receptors relative to the project site impacts whether receptors are exposed to projectrelated pollutants.

The following is a summary of the health effects from ozone, PM2.5 and PM10. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in ozone formation, and ideal conditions occur on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in California can result in health effects. When inhaled, PM2.5 and PM10 can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks and cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases.

Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Health effects of PM2.5 include mortality (all causes), hospital admissions (respiratory, asthma, cardiovascular), emergency room visits (asthma), and acute myocardial infarction (non-fatal). For ozone, the endpoints are mortality, emergency room visits (respiratory) and hospital admissions (respiratory).

For this project, mass emissions for construction are below significance levels. For operation, emissions are also below significance levels for on-site daily emissions. Annual operational emissions are above the significance thresholds for NOx and PM10 prior to rule compliance and reduced to below the annual thresholds after rule compliance. The health effects from these emissions have been addressed by the analyses included herein.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
40 Project Inventory in Context
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts establishes thresholds which are based upon scientific data that demonstrate the level of criteria air pollutant emissions that can be accommodated in the San Joaquin Valley without affecting the attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the CAAQS and NAAQS are set to protect the public health and welfare from the effects of air pollution. Thus, the analyses relative to the SJVAPCD significance thresholds are an indicator for the potential health effects. The District has also adopted health risk thresholds that provide a threshold regarding the potential health effects for air pollutants. The GAMAQI states that “the District has established thresholds of significance for TACs that are extremely conservative and protective of health impacts on sensitive receptors.” The CO hotspots analysis further evaluates for health effects based on the CAAQS for CO. The evaluation of the air emissions, which is a measure of potential health effects, are highlighted in Section 7.1 through 7.3.2.

7.4 Threshold 4
Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

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

SJVAPCD Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facility 2 Miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 Mile
Transfer Station 1 Mile
Composting Facility 1 Mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 Miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 Mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 Mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 Mile
Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
41 Project Inventory in Context
SJVAPCD Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Type of Facility Distance
Painting/Coating Operations 1 Mile
Food Processing Facility 1 Mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 Mile
Rendering Plant 1 Mile

7.4.2 Valley Fever

7.4.2.1 Background
Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis is one of the most studied and oldest known fungal infections. Coccidioidomycosis was first discovered in the early 1890s in Domingo Ezcurra, an Argentinean soldier, and in 1900 was established as a fungal disease. After an outbreak in the 1930s in the San Joaquin Valley of California, this disease was given its nickname “San Joaquin Valley Fever,” often shortened further to “Valley Fever”.86 Valley Fever is primarily a disease of the lungs caused by inhalation of spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus. The Coccidioides fungus resides in the soil in southwestern United States, northern Mexico, and parts of Central and South America. When weather and moisture conditions are favorable, the fungus “blooms” and forms many tiny spores that lie dormant in the soil. The spores are found in the top few inches of soil, become airborne when the soil is disturbed by wind, vehicles, excavation, or other ground-moving activities, and are subsequently inhaled into the lungs. After the fungal spores have settled in the lungs, they change into a multicellular structure called a spherule. Fungal growth in the lungs occurs as the spherule grows and bursts, releasing endospores, which then develop into more spherules.

Infection occurs when the spores of the fungus become airborne and are inhaled. The fungal spores become airborne when contaminated soil is disturbed by human activities, such as construction and agricultural activities, and natural phenomenon, such as windstorms, dust storms, and earthquakes.

Valley Fever symptoms generally occur within 2-3 weeks of exposure. Approximately 60% of Valley Fever cases are mild and display flu-like symptoms or no symptoms. The remainder developed flu-like symptoms (fatigue, cough, chest pain, fever, rash, headache, and joint aches) that can last for a month and tiredness that can sometimes last for longer than a few weeks. In some cases, painful red bumps may develop. A small percentage of infected persons (<1%) can develop disseminated disease that spreads outside the lungs to the brain, bone, and skin. Without proper treatment, Valley Fever can lead to severe pneumonia, meningitis, and even death. Symptoms may appear 1 to 4 weeks after exposure. 86 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. 2004. Coccidioidomycosis: Cases of Valley Fever on the Rise in Southern California. The Public’s Health Newsletter for Medical Professionals in Los Angeles County, Volume 4, Number 3. April. Available at: http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/tph/TPHApril2004.pdf. Accessed:

February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
42 Project Inventory in Context
These symptoms are not unique to Valley Fever and may be caused by other illnesses as well. Identifying and confirming this disease requires specific laboratory tests such as:
(1) microscopic identification of the fungal spherules in the infected tissue, sputum, or body fluid sample; (2) growing a culture of Coccidioides immitis from a tissue specimen, sputum, or body fluid; (3) detection of antibodies (serological tests specifically for Valley Fever) against the fungus in blood serum or other body fluids; and (4) administering the Valley Fever skin test (called coccidioidin or spherulin), which indicates prior exposure to the fungus Valley Fever is not contagious, and thus cannot be passed from person to person. Most individuals who are infected will recover without treatment within 6 months and will have a life-long immunity to the fungal spores. In severe cases, such as patients with rapid and extensive primary illness, those who are at risk for dissemination of disease, and those who have disseminated disease, antifungal drug therapy is used. Only 1-2% of those exposed who seek medical attention will develop a disease that spreads to other parts of the body other than the lungs. The table below presents infection classifications and normal diagnostic spread as noted in recent research.

Range of Valley Fever Cases87,88
Infection Classification Percent of Total Diagnosed Cases Asymptomatic infections 60
Infections that resolve spontaneously (with lifelong
immunity) 35
Chronic disease or disease disseminated throughout
the body Up to 5
Meningeal infection (affecting brain and/or spinal
cord and requiring lifetime treatment) 0.15–0.75
Factors that affect the susceptibility to coccidioidal dissemination are race, sex, pregnancy, age, and immunosuppression. In 2019, there were 9,004 reported Valley Fever cases in California.89 Consistent with previous years, the highest incidence of Valley fever in 2019 was reported in counties in the Central Valley and Central Coast regions of California, including Kern, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Tulare, Madera, and Monterey counties. Of the 9,004 reported cases, 621 were reported for Fresno County.90 Within Fresno County, elevated 87 Hector RF, Laniado-Laborin R. 2005. Coccidioidomycosis—A Fungal Disease of the Americas. PLoS Medicine. 2005;2(1):e2. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020002. Available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545195. Accessed: February 2022. 88 Saubolle, Michael A., Peter P. McKellar, and Den Sussland. 2007. Epidemiologic, clinical, and diagnostic aspects of coccidioidomycosis. Journal of clinical microbiology 45.1: 26-30. Available at:
http://jcm.asm.org/content/45/1/26.short. Accessed: February 2022. 89 California Department of Public Health. 2020. Valley Fever Cases Reach Record High in California in 2019.

Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR20-321.aspx. Accessed: February 2022. 90 California Department of Public Health. 2020. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever in California, 2019. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2019.pdf.

Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
43 Project Inventory in Context
areas of Valley Fever activity are known in the western portion, which does not include the City of Fresno.91

7.4.2.2 Assessment of Valley Fever Risks
The Coccidioides immitis fungus spores found in soil, which are responsible for transmitting the Valley Fever, can disperse in the air when the soil is disturbed during construction activities, and then can be inhaled into the lungs. On-site construction workers potentially could be exposed to Valley Fever from fugitive dust generated during construction of the Project, notably during grading and other earthmoving activities. Construction activities are subject to SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition). Regulation VIII is intended to reduce ambient concentrations of PM10 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. By reducing fugitive dust emissions, Regulation VIII reduces potential exposure to Valley Fever. Since current long-term residents typically already have been exposed to and have developed immunity to Valley Fever, construction activities are not expected to add significantly to exposure of off-site residents to the fungus.

Operation of the Project is not expected to produce significant amounts of fugitive dust.

Therefore, operational activities are not expected to add significantly to exposure of off-site residents to the fungus.
91 Fresno County. Valley Fever in Fresno County. Available at:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/20584/636482356859800000. Accessed: February 2022.

Costco Commercial Center
Air Quality Technical Report
Fresno, California
Ramboll
TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of NAAQS and CAAQS
Costco Commercial Center
Fresno, California
Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
- 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3 Annual Arithmetic
Mean 20 µg/m3
- 24 Hour - - 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean 12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or BetaAttenuation 12.0 µg/m3

15.0 µg/m3
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3
) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) - 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3
) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) - 8 Hour (Lake
Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) - - 1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3
) - Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)

0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3) 75 ppb (196 µg/m3
)
3 Hour - - 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)11 - Annual Arithmetic
Mean - 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)11 - 30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3
- Calendar Quarter - 1.5 µg/m3
(for certain areas)12 Rolling 3-Month
Average - 0.15 µg/m3 Visibility Reducing
Particles14 8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3
) Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Vinyl Chloride12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) Gas Chromatography Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards2 Ozone (O3)8 Ultraviolet Photometry Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)9 Gravimetric or BetaAttenuation
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation and
Gravimetric Analysis
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)9
Inertial Separation and
Gravimetric Analysis
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Non-Dispersive Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
Non-Dispersive Infrared
Photometry (NDIR)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)10 Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)11 Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophotometry
(Pararosaniline Method)
Lead (Pb)12,13 Atomic Absorption High Volume Sampler
and Atomic Absorption Same as Primary
Standard
No National Standards
Notes: 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard.

For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Methods specified by the ARB or any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5
National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7 Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 8
On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

Page 1 of 2 ends
← All documents from this meeting