26-1213 Exhibit A - Addendum to the First Responders Campus Project IER — Fresno City Council, September 17, 2026 (part 2 of 5)

Alternative Location #2:

Alternative Location #2 is a 51.35- acre parcel located in an unincorporated area near Calwa on the west side of Orange Avenue between California Avenue and Church Avenue (2314 S. Orange Avenue; Fresno County APN 480 - 050-19). This site is within the City of Fresno SOI and is designated Heavy Industrial in the City’s General Plan La nd Us
e Map. The site is occupied by what appears to be the remnants of a former cotton processing facility or other commercial agricultural use; the remaining on-site development includes two vacant buildings and large asphalt and concrete paved areas. Development in the vicinity of the site consists primarily of industrial and warehouse uses, plus some small clusters of rural single-family residences to the east and west of the site. There is also a railroad line located on the west side of the site.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

111
Figure 6: Alternative Site Locations

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

112
Using Fresno COG VMT mapping tool, VMT per Employee for Alternative Location #2 is shown as “orange” for both the 13-percent threshold and the 15 -percent threshold , which the VMT tool describes as “within ± the regional average”.

The primary results of proceeding with Alternative Project Location #2 would be as follows:
• Based on review of the site using Fresno COG’s VMT mapping tool, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with this site are within the mixed and/or margin-of-error range for meeting the regional VMT threshold.

While the VMT of this alternative could be lower than that of the proposed project site, it is not clear if development of the project at this site would achieve project-specific VMT below the regional VMT threshold.
• Since GHG emissions resulting from the project are primarily associated with vehicular travel, this alternative would also be projected to generate less GHG emissions than the proposed project site.

However, GHG emissions would still be significant and remain above the GHG efficiency threshold. • Other environmental impacts are anticipated to be comparable overall to those that would occur from the currently proposed project si te. Like the proposed project site, it is within the City of Fresno SOI and designated for industrial use, and the site was encompassed within the Plan Area evaluated as part of the City of Fresno General Plan MEIR . However, while many of the environmental impacts are likely to be comparable to the project site, there are several potential environmental drawbacks to this site. For instance, with respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, depending on the site’s history and surrounding use history, there could be hazards present and/or cleanup required. In addition, development of the site would also involve the removal of extensive asphalt and concrete paved areas, as well as old structures from the past use of the site. Final ly, the parcel’s western boundary is adjacent to a rail line, which is problematic for satisfying applicable criteria for the siting of community college facilities . • The objectives set forth by SCCCD in proposing the project would be largely achievable. This site is in a regionally centralized location that appears to offer a similar region -serving capacity as the proposed project site. The site’s size and shape appear to be capable of meeting SCCCD’s long- term ability to adequately house and provide instruction to students as well as achieve operational efficiencies through combining emergency responder programs onto a single specialized campus. Like the project site, the alternative site would also be located in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area. However, with the adjacent railroad, the site would not satisfy community college siting criteria .

6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project because it would not result in the generation of vehicle miles traveled above the Fresno County VMT reduction threshold, nor would it result in project- related GHG emissions above the GHG efficiency threshold. However, this alternative cannot feasibly attain the objectives of the project.

Of th e remaining alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative is Alternative Location #1. Based on the Fresno COG VMT Screening Application, this alternative location would result in vehicle miles traveled below the VMT reduction threshold and thus av oid significant VMT -related transportation impacts. The remaining environmental impacts of the Alternative Location #1 would be largely similar to project site. Alternative Location #2, while it also is superior to the project site with respect to VMT, it has several substantial drawbacks that make it less desirable than Alternative Location No. 1.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

113

7. Names of Persons Who Prepared or Participated in Preparation of the EIR

7.1 Lead Agency
State Center Community College District
1171 Fulton Street
Fresno, CA 93721
Christine Miktarian, Vice Chancellor of Operations
Phone: (559) 243-7200
E-mail: [email protected]
George Cummings, Director of Facilities Planning
Phone: (559) 243-7191
E-mail: [email protected]

7.2 Environmental Review Consultant
Odell Planning & Research, Inc.
49346 Road 426, Suite 2
Oakhurst, California 93644
Telephone: (559) 472-7167
www.odellplanning.com
Scott B. Odell, AICP, Principal & Project Manager
E-mail: [email protected]
Daniel Brannick, AICP, Senior Planner
E-mail: [email protected]

7.3 Technical Consultants
Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting (Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impacts) 612 12th Street, Suite 201
Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 226-2727
www.ambient.consulting
Kurt Legleiter, Principal
E-mail: [email protected]
Peters Engineering Group (Transportation Impacts)
862 Pollasky Avenue
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 299-1544
www.peters-engineering.com
John Rowland, P.E., T.E, Senior Traffic Engineer
E-mail: [email protected]

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

114

8. Sources Consulted
Following are the sources consulted in preparing this Environmental Impact Report:

Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consul ting. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for the Proposed Fresno City College First Responders Center Project, County of Fresno, CA. June 2021.

Sources cited by Ambient:

Air Quality Analysis
California Air Resources Board (ARB). Aerometric Data Division. January 1992. California Surface Wind Climatology. ---. 2000. Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Website URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm. ---. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions & Air Quality. ---. 2020(a). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website URL: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ---. 2020(b). Air Quality Data. Website URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html ---. 2020(c). Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health ---. Accessed: May 2, 2016(c). Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. Website URL:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
California Building Standards Commission (BSC). April 2016. CalGreen. Website URL: http://www.bsc.ca.gov.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). Division of Mines and Geology. August 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California -Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Open File Report 2000-19.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1996. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol .

University of California Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, UCD- ITS-RR-96-1.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2020. Valley Fever Awareness . Website URL:
https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/features/valley-fever.html
Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPC D). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

Website URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Fres no Yosemite International Airport, California (043257). Website URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257 Greenhouse Gas Analysis
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit – by Sector and Activity (Land Use- driven sectors only) MMT CO2e - (based upon IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potentials). Website URL:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf . ---. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

115
---. 2015. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Inventory. Website URL:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/slcp/slcp.htm.
---. 2016. Assembly Bill 32 Overview. Website URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm ---. 2017(a). Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf ---. 2017(b). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan ---. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018. Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Website URL: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00 -18.pdf California Building Standards Commission (BSC). April 2016. CalGreen. Website URL:
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. Demographic Research Unit. Report P -1A: Total Population Projections, California, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2019 Release) . Website URL:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. California Hydroelectric Statistics and Data. Website URL:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/hydro/index_cms.php International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 .

Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land- use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA .

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Website URL: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/land-use-ceqa.php South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold. Website URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/d efault- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018 . Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions . Website URL: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html ---. 2020. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Understanding Global Warming Potentials . Website URL:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting. Energy Impact Analysis for the Pro posed Fresno City College First Responders Center Project, County of Fresno, CA. April 2021.

Sources cited by Ambient:

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2013. Facts About California’s Sustainable Communities Plans . Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/sb375/sacog_fact_sheet.pdf
---. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf ---. 2016. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm ---. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

116
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017b. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory – Categories. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards . Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ. pdf
---. 2020. California Biomass and Waste-To-Energy Statistics and Data. Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/biomass/index_cms.php California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board (CEC&CARB). 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/ab2076final.pdf Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2018. PG&E Clean Energy Deliveries Already Meet Future Goals . Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20180220_pge_clean_energy_deliv eries_already_meet_future_goals.

County of Fresno. 2000. Fresno County General Plan. Policy Document .

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2020a. Where your electricity comes from. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill- inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf
---. 2020b. Learn about the PG&E natural gas system. Available at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how -the- system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas-system-overview.page Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus .

South Coast Air Quality Manage ment District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook . Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009 -08-12_Attachemt_AQ1- 1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2013. Pipeline Basics. Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/PipelineBasics.pdf ---. 2020. Natural Gas Transmission. Available at: https://www.socalgas.com/stay -safe/pipeline-and-storage- safety/natural-gas-transmission
United States En vironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. Midterm Evaluation of Light -Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-lightduty-vehicle- greenhouse-gas
---. 2018. Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022 -2025 Light -duty Vehicles. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/mte-final- determination-notice-2018-04-02.pdf
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. FRESNO YOSEMITE INTL AP, CALIFORNIA (043257). Website URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257 Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting. Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Analysis for the Proposed Fresno City College First Responders Center Project, County of Fresno, CA. June 2021.

Sources cited by Ambient:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. EIR/EA Annotated Outline. ---. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual .

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

117
County of Fresno. 2000. Fresno County General Plan. Policy Document . Website URL:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument?id=18117 ---. 2021. Fresno County Code of Ordinances. Chapter 8.40 – Noise Control. Website URL:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH8.40NOCO Engineering ToolBox. 2005. Voice Level at Distance. Website URL:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/voice-level-d_938.html Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment. 2017. Siren Limitation Training. Website URL:
https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/siren-limitation-training/#gref Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responder s Campus.

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1974. Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). Division of Land Resource Protection. “ California Important Farmland Finder ” (web mapping tool). Accessed February 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ ---. “Fresno County 2016-2018 Land Use Conversion, Table A-7.” Accessed February 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/20162018/alternate_conversion/Alternate_ Fresno_County_2016-2018_Land_Use_and_Rural_Conversion.pdf ---. “Important Farmland Categories.” Accessed February 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx ---. California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual . 1997. (Accessed February 2021 via https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Pages/qh_lesa.aspx) California Department of Finance . E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change – January 1, 2020 and 2021. May 2021.

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). EnviroStor. Accessed March 2021. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Accessed June 2021. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). SGMA Data Viewer. Accessed May 2021. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels California Energy Commission (CEC). “2019 Total System Electric Generation.” Accessed May 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric- generation/2019
City of Fresno. “ City of Fresno GIS Data Viewing Application. ” Accessed March 2020 through July 2021. Website URL:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dbd9813b2fa74382b3096b9613e7470d State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

118
City of Fresno. Development and Resource Management Department. Draft Master Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Development Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. July 2014. ---. Response to Comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report, General Plan and Dev elopment Code Update, City of Fresno, Fresno County, California. December 2014. ---. Fresno General Plan. December 2014.
---. Fresno Active Transportation Plan. December 2016.
---. Municipal Code of the City of Fresno, Chapter 15 Citywide Development Code. December 2015. (Accessed May 2021 via https://www.fresno.gov/darm/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/FresnoCitywideDevelopmentCode.pdf ) County of Fresno. Fresno County General Plan Policy Document. October 2000. ---. Fresno County General Plan Background Report. October 2000.

Fresno Council of Governments. 2013 Fresno County Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan. July 2014. Accessed via https://www.fresnocog.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2013-RHNA-Plan.pdf Fresno County Farm Bureau. “Fresno County Ag.” Accessed May 2021. http://www.fcfb.org/Fresno-Ag/Fresno-Ag.php Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Storm Drainage and Flood Control Master Plan. Accessed May 2021. http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/3-FMFCD-Master- Plan-District-Map.pdf
---. “Urban Basins, Sandbags, Dams & Streams .” Accessed May 2021. http://www.fresnofloodcontrol.org/urban -basins- sandbags-dams-streams/
Odell Planning & Research. Site Photographs of Proposed SCCCD First Responders Campus Project Site and Vicinity. April 26, 2021.

Parga Partners. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report . Agricultural Land, Residences, & Outbuildings 3276, 3286, 3322 & 3324 East North Avenue, Fresno, California. May 2019.

Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group. City of Fresno 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. ---. North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Groundwater Sustainability Plan. November 21, 2019.

Rowland, John. Peters Engineering Group. Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus. Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California. March 2021.

Sources cited by John Rowland and Peters Engineering Group:

California State Transportation Agency and California Departm ent of Transportation (Caltrans). California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition (Revision 5). March 27, 2020.

California Highway Patrol. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. Accessed February 2021. Website URL:
https://www.chp.ca.gov/Programs-Services/Services-Information/SWITRS-Internet-Statewide-Integrated-Traffic- Records-System
City of Fresno. Fresno General Plan. December 2014.
---. Fresno Active Transportation Plan. December 2016.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project EIR

119
---. City-Wide Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact Fee Nexus Analysis for Proposed Fee Update . September 2016. ---. 2016 Fresno Major Street Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Update (Public Review Draft Report) . November 2016.
---. Fresno Area Express website. Accessed March 2021 Website URL: https://www.fresno.gov/transportation/fax/ ---. Fresno Municipal Code Chapter 15: Citywide Development Code. December 2015.

County of Fresno. Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within County of Fresno dated August 2012
Fresno Council of Governments. “Measure C”. Accessed February 2021. Website URL:
https://www.fresnocog.org/project/measure-c/
Harmelink, M.D. “ Volume Warrants for Left -Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersections ” Highway Research Record No. 211, Highway Research Board, 1967
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. 2017 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.” December 2018.

Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. 2016.

Transportation Research Board. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255 entitled “Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.” December 1982.

Salem Engin eering Group , Inc . Geotechnical Engineering Investigation with Geologic Hazards Evaluation, Proposed State Center Community College District: First Responders Campus Near the Northwest Corner of East North Avenue and South Willow Avenue, Fresno, Fresno County, California 93725. October 2020.

State Center Community College District. 2019-2030 Districtwide Facilities Master Plan Update. November 2019. https://www.scccd.edu/_uploaded-files/documents/measure-c/facilities-master-plan/2019_scccd_fmp.pdf State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code, Division 13. Environmental Quality State of California. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3: Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey mapping tool. Accessed February 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey. “Malaga Quadrangle”, California, 7.5 Series Topographic Map.

Wilbanks Environmental Consulting, Inc . Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3276 East North Avenue Fresno, California. August 2019.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020039018)

Appendix A
Agricultural Resources Worksheets
Final LESA Worksheet for SCCCD First Responders Campus Project Factor Score
Factor
Weight
Weighted
Factor
Scores
LE Factors
Land Capability
Classification (LCC)
Storie Index
LE Subtotal

71.49 77.36

0.25 0.25

0.50 17.87

19.34 37.21
SA Factors
Project Size
Water Resource
Availability
Surrounding Agricultural
Land
Surrounding Protected
Resource Land
SA Subtotal

50.00 65.00

0.00 0.00
Final LESA

0.15 0.15

0.15 0.05

0.50 Score:

7.50 9.75

0.00 0.00

17.25 54.46
California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
0 to 39 points
40 to 59 points
60 to 79 points
80 to 100 points
Not Considered Significant
Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores
are each greater than or equal to 20 points
Considered Significant unless either LE or SA
subscore is less than 20 points
Considered Significant
Determination: Since the project site's total LESA score is between 40 and 59, and since the project site's LE and SA subscores are not each greater than or equal to 20, the conversion of agricultural land is not considered significant.

LESA Worksheet Calculations for SCCCD First Responders Campus Project Land Capability Classification (LCC) and Storie Index Scores Proportion
Project of Project Storie Index
Soil Map Unit Acres Area LCC** LCC Rating LCC Score Storie Index Score Hc 1.0 2.5% 2s 80 1.99 95 2.36
Hst 22.1 55.0% 2s 80 43.98 90 49.48
Hsy 17.1 42.5% 3s 60 25.52 60 25.52
Total* 40.2 100.0% 71.49 77.36
*Due to the method by which the project site parcel was mapped for the Web Soil Survey, the area evaluated (40.2 acres) is slightly larger than the 39.21‐acre project site parcel. However, the mapped soil types, ratios, and distribution shown for the

40.2‐acre survey area are essentially the same as they would be for the 39.21‐acre project site.
**The LCC values assume the site is irrigated. Values would be lower if the site was not irrigated.

Project Size Score
LCC Class I‐II III IV‐VIII
Total Acres 23.1 17.1 0.0
Scoring Range 20‐39 ac 10‐ 19 ac <40 ac
Project Size Scores 50 30 0
Highest Project Size Score 50
Water Resource Availability Score
Proportion Water Weighted
of Project Availability Availability
Project Portion Water Source Area Score Score
Irrigation District and ALL 100% (1.0) 65* 65groundwater *See Option 7 from Table 5 of the LESA Instruction Manual. Irrigated production is assumed feasible during Drought and Non‐Drought years, but there are physical restrictions and economic restrictions present during both Drought and Non‐Drought years.

LESA Worksheet Calculations for SCCCD First Responders Campus Project Surrounding Agricultural Land Use Score
APN Size
Acres in
Agriculture
Acres of
Protected
Resource Land
Portion in
Agriculture
Portion
Protected
Resource Land
31607143
31607168
31607169T
31607167
31607166T
31607126U
31607129SU
316071148
33107229S
33107228S
33107134S
33107136S
33107139S
33107133S
33107137S
33107138S
33107132S
33107105
33107113
33107104
33107103S
33107102
33107124
31607122
31607121
31607120
31607119
31607118
31607117
31607116
31607115
31607165
31607164
31607114
31607156
31607155
31607152
31607165
31607160
31607154
31607159
31607153
31607145
31607151
31607161
31607158
31607170
31607171
31607144

40.93 5.22

5.47 5.1

4.76 9.62

2.69 6.58

10.87 11.68

5.71 3.12

5.52 8.08

6.6 4.22

5.54 4.96

22.08 2.5

2.46 3.5

8.55 3.56

0.18 1.22

1.28 1.46
1 1.06

9.4 0.73

1.19 3.09

1.85 2.35

2.52 1.99

1.36 1.36

1.36 0.79

26.09 4.74

1.14 14.43

1.06 1

25.09 Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

40.93 5.22

0.00 5.10

0.00 0.00

25.09 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Total Acres:
297.06
% in Ag:

25.70%
% Protected:

0.00%
Surrounding Agricultural Land
Surrounding Protected Resource
Score:

Score:
0 0
E Annadale Ave
Arnold Way
S
C
hestnutAve
San Joaquin Valley
E North Ave
S
Bliss
Ave
S
ChestnutAve
S
W
illow
Ave
E Annadale Ave
S
W
illow
A
ve
E North Ave
Maxar, Microsoft, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Fresno County Dept.

PWP, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
¯
0 400 800200
Feet
Important Farmland Classification
State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project Project Site
Prime Farmland
Unique Farmland
Farmland of Local Importance
Rural Residential Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Eastern Fresno
Area, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
October 30, 2020
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 Eastern Fresno Area, California......................................................................13 Hc—Hanford sandy loam............................................................................ 13 Hst—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep.........................................................14 Hsy—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep, saline-sodic...................................15 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................17 Soil Reports........................................................................................................17 Land Classifications........................................................................................17 California Revised Storie Index (CA) (SCCCD First Responders).............. 17 References............................................................................................................19 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
4064290 4064370 4064450 4064530 4064610 4064690
4064210 4064290 4064370 4064450 4064530 4064610 4064690 255770 255850 255930 256010 256090 256170 256250 256330 256410 256490 255770 255850 255930 256010 256090 256170 256250 256330 256410 256490 36° 41' 48'' N
119° 44' 2'' W
36° 41' 48'' N
119° 43' 31'' W
36° 41' 32'' N
119° 44' 2'' W
36° 41' 32'' N
119° 43' 31'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,500 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: Eastern Fresno Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 13, May 29, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Feb 28, 2020—Mar 5, 2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
10 Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Hc Hanford sandy loam 1.0 2.5%
Hst Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep 22.1 55.0%
Hsy Hesperia fine sandy loam,
deep, saline-sodic

17.1 42.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 40.2 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the Custom Soil Resource Report
11 development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 Eastern Fresno Area, California
Hc—Hanford sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hl5f
Elevation: 200 to 500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 61 to 63 degrees F
Frost-free period: 250 to 275 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hanford and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hanford
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 16 inches: sandy loam
C - 16 to 72 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans, flood plains
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
13 Unnamed, channeled
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Channels on alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Hst—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2yc9g
Elevation: 230 to 310 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 12 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 314 to 327 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Hesperia, deep, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hesperia, Deep
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Coarse-loamy alluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Ap2 - 5 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam
Bt - 11 to 32 inches: fine sandy loam
Btk - 32 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
2Bdk - 43 to 63 inches: stratified silt loam
2Cd - 63 to 79 inches: stratified silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 43 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low (0.01 to

0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Custom Soil Resource Report
14 Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 2.0
Available water capacity: Low (about 5.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, reclaimed
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Fan skirts
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, loam surface
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Hydric soil rating: No
Hsy—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep, saline-sodic
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2yc9h
Elevation: 210 to 290 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 64 degrees F
Frost-free period: 311 to 325 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium
Map Unit Composition
Hesperia and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Hesperia
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
Ap1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Ap2 - 5 to 11 inches: fine sandy loam
Btn - 11 to 32 inches: fine sandy loam
Btkn - 32 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 2Bdkn - 43 to 63 inches: stratified silt loam
2Cd - 63 to 79 inches: stratified silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 43 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low (0.01 to

0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to moderately saline (4.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 25.0
Available water capacity: Low (about 4.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 15 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
16 Soil Information for All Uses
Soil Reports
The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables) containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections.

The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities. A description of each report (table) is included.

Land Classifications
This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present a variety of soil groupings. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Land classifications are specified land use and management groupings that are assigned to soil areas because combinations of soil have similar behavior for specified practices. Most are based on soil properties and other factors that directly influence the specific use of the soil. Example classifications include ecological site classification, farmland classification, irrigated and nonirrigated land capability classification, and hydric rating.

California Revised Storie Index (CA) (SCCCD First
Responders)
The Revised Storie Index is a rating system based on soil properties that govern the potential for soil map unit components to be used for irrigated agriculture in California.

The Revised Storie Index assesses the productivity of a soil from the following four characteristics:
- Factor A: degree of soil profile development
- Factor B: texture of the surface layer
- Factor C: steepness of slope
- Factor X: drainage class, landform, erosion class, flooding and ponding frequency and duration, soil pH, soluble salt content as measured by electrical conductivity, and sodium adsorption ratio
17 Revised Storie Index numerical ratings have been combined into six classes as follows:
- Grade 1: Excellent (81 to 100)
- Grade 2: Good (61 to 80)
- Grade 3: Fair (41 to 60)
- Grade 4: Poor (21 to 40)
- Grade 5: Very poor (11 to 20)
- Grade 6: Nonagricultural (10 or less)
Reference:

O'Geen, A.T., Southard, S.B., Southard, R.J. 2008. A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 8355. http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8335.pdf Report—California Revised Storie Index (CA) (SCCCD First Responders)
California Revised Storie Index (CA)–Eastern Fresno Area, California Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit California Revised Storie Index (CA) Rating class Value
Hc—Hanford sandy loam
Hanford 85 Grade 1 - Excellent 95
Unnamed 10 Not Applicable for Storie Index
Unnamed, channeled 5 Not Applicable for Storie Index
Hst—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep
Hesperia, deep 85 Grade 1 - Excellent 90
Unnamed, reclaimed 10 Not Applicable for Storie Index
Unnamed, loam surface 5 Not Applicable for Storie Index Hsy—Hesperia fine sandy loam, deep, saline-
sodic
Hesperia 85 Grade 2 - Good 60
Unnamed 15 Not Applicable for Storie Index
Custom Soil Resource Report
18 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
20 State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020039018)
Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis

AI R QU A L I T Y &

GR E E N H O U S E GAS

IM P A C T

AS S E S S M E N T

F O R T H E P R O P O S E D

FR E S N O C I T Y CO L L E G E

FI R S T RE S P O N D E R S CE N T E R

PR O J E C T

C O U N T Y OF F R E S N O , CA
JUNE 2021
PREPARED FOR:

ODELL PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.
49346 ROAD 426, SUITE 2
OAKHURST, CA 93644
PREPARED BY:
612 12TH STREET, SUITE 201
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Proposed Project ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 Air Quality................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 Existing Setting................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 Topography, Meteorology, and Pollutant Dispersion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1 Air Pollutants of Concern ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 5 Asbestos ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 Valley Fever................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 Regulatory Framework................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 12 Federal ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 12 State................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 15 Regulatory Attainment Designations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16 Ambient Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 Sensitive Receptors................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17 Impacts & Mitigation Measures................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 18 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 Thresholds of Significance................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 Project Impacts................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 26 Existing Setting................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 Sources of GHG Emissions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 27 Effects of Global Climate Change................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 28 Regulatory Framework................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Federal ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 29 State................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 30 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 34 Impacts & Mitigation Measures................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Thresholds of Significance................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 35 Project Impacts................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 37 References................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 40

LIST OF TABLES
Table AQ-1. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13 Table AQ-2. SJVAB Attainment Status Designations................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 Table AQ-3. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ................................ ................................ ................................ 17 Table AQ-4. Annual and Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation................................ ................................ ................ 20 Table AQ-5. Annual and Daily Operational Emissions without Mitigation................................ ................................ ................. 21 Table GHG-1. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases ................................ ................................ ............................. 27 Table GHG-2. Project-Level GHG Efficiency Threshold Calculation................................ ................................ .......................... 36 Table GHG-3. Construction-Generated GHG Emissions without Mitigation ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Table GHG-4. Operational GHG Emissions without Mitigation................................ ................................ ................................ ... 38 Table GHG-5. Operational GHG Emissions with Mitigation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 39

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure AQ-1. Site Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 Figure AQ-2. Site Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 Figure GHG-1. State of California Greenhouse Gases Emissions Inventory by Economic Sector ................................ ........... 28 Figure GHG-2. California Black Carbon Emissions Inventory (Year 2013)................................ ................................ .................. 29

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Emissions Modeling
Appendix B: Emissions Calculation
Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
ACBM Asbestos-Containing Building Material
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material
AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BAU Business As Usual
BPS Best Performance Standards
BSC Building Standards Commission
C2H3Cl Vinyl Chloride
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
DPM Diesel-Exhaust Particulate Matter
DRRP Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
EO Executive Order
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
ISR Indirect Source Review
lbs/day Pounds per day
LOS Level of Service
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for HAPs
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
O3 Ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 μm)
PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 μm)
ppm Parts per Million
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCCD State Center Community College District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021

SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SLOAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Di strict SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO 2-4 Sulfate
SOx Oxides of Sulfur
SP Service Population
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TOG Total O rganic Gas
U.S. EPA United States Environmental P rotection Agency UFP Ultrafine Particles
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 1 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the existing environment in the project vicinity and identif ies potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the proposed project. Project impacts are evaluated relative to applicable thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures have been identified for significant impacts.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The State Center Community College District (SCCCD) is proposing to undertake the Fresno City College First Responders Center (project).

The SCCCD proposed campus for first responders is to be located on the western half of an approximately 40-acre site northwest of the intersection of Willow and North Avenues in Fresno County, California. The proposed campus will include a fire academy, police academy, and EMT training in numerous small cohorts moving through the academy programs. Approximately 270 students would be on the campus at any one time, staffed by up to 50 employees, including administrators, faculty, and support staff. Site access is expected to be from one or more driveways connecting to North Avenue, with left turns into the site allowed from eastbound North Avenue.

The facilities will include a total of approximately 62,000 square feet of building area with a spot tower, a scenario village, and a virtual-reality/simulation laboratory, which may include joint use with the City of Fresno and other agencies. The police and fire academies are expected to begin daily operations at 7:00 a.m. and finish at approximately 5:00 p.m., although night classes until 10:00 p.m. are possible. Day courses for EMT training are likely to begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.

Evening courses for EMT training are likely to start at 6:00 p.m. and end by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023.

A site vicinity map is presented in Figure AQ-1, Site Vicinity Map, and a site plan is presented in Figure AQ-2, Site Plan.

AIR QUALITY

EXISTING SETTING
The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The SJVAB is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) . Air quality in the SJVAB is influenced by a variety of factors, including topography and meteorology. Factors affecting regional and local air quality are discussed below.

TOPOGRAPHY, METEOROLOGY, AND POLLUTANT DISPERSION
The dispersion of air pollution in an area is determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, coupled with atmospheric stability conditions and the presence of inversi ons. The factors affecting the dispersion of air pollution with respect to the SJVAB are discussed below.

Topography
The SJVAB occupies the southern half of the Central Valley. The SJVAB is open to the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all ot her sides. The Coast Ranges, which have an average elevation of 3,000 feet, are along the western boundary of the SJVAB, while the Sierra Nevada Mountains (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation) are along the eastern border. The San Emigdio Mountains, which ar e part of the Coast Ranges, and the Tehachapi Mountains, which are part of the Sierra Nevada, form the southern boundary, and have an elevation of 6,000 to 8,000 feet. The SJVAB is mostly flat with a downward gradient in terrain to the northwest.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 2 Figure AQ-1. Site Vicinity Map
Source: PEG 2021

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 3 Figure AQ-2. Site Plan
Source: PEG 2021

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 4 Meteorology and Climate
The SJVAB has an inland Mediterranean climate that is strongly influenced by the presence of mountain ranges. The mountain ranges to the west and south induce winter storms from the Pacific Ocean to release precipitation on the western slopes producing a partial rain shadow over the valley. In addition, the mountain ranges block the free circulation of air to the east, trapping stable air in the valley for extended periods during the cooler half of the year.

Winter in the SJVAB is characterized as mild and fairly humid, while the summer is typically hot, dry, and cloudless. The climate is a result of the topography and the strength and lo cation of a semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. During the summer months, the Pacific high-pressure cell is centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in stable meteorological conditions and a steady northwesterly wind flow. Upwelling of cold ocean water from below to the surface as a result of the northwesterly flow produces a band of cold water off the California coast. In winter, the Pacific high -pressure cell weakens and shifts southward, resulting in wind flow offshore, the absence of upwelling, and the occurrence of storms.

The annual temperature, humidity, precipitation, and wind patterns reflect the topography of the SJVAB and the strength and location of the semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell. Summer temperatures that often exceed 100°F and clear sky conditions are favorable to ozone formation. Most of the precipitation in the valley occurs as rainfall during winter storms. The winds and unstable atmospheric conditions associated with the passage of winter storm s result in periods of low air pollution and excellent visibility. However, between winter storms, high pressure and light winds lead to the creation of low-level temperature inversions and stable atmospheric conditions , which can result in high er pollutant concentrations. The orientation of the wind flow pattern in the SJVAB is parallel to the valley and mountain ranges. Summer wind conditions promote the transport of ozone and precursors from the San Francisco Bay Area through the Carquinez Strait, a gap in the Coast Ranges, and low-mountain passes such as Altamont Pass and Pacheco Pass. During the summer, the predominant wind direction is from the northwest. During the winter, the predominant wind direction is from the southeast. Calm conditions are also predominant during the winter (ARB 1992).

The climate is semi-arid, with an annual average precipitation of approximately 11 inches. Temperatures in the project area range from an average minimum of approximately 37F, in December, to an average maximum of 98F, in July (WRCC 2021).

Atmospheric Stability and Inversions
Stability describes the resistance of the atmosphere to vertical motion. The stability of the atmosphere is dependent on the vertical distribution of temperature with height. Stability categories range from “Extremely Unstable” (Class A), through Neutral (Class D), to “Stable” (Class F). Unstable conditions often occur during daytime hours when solar heating warms the lower atmospheric layers sufficiently. Under C lass A stability conditions, large fluctuations in horizontal wind direction occur coupled with large vertical mixing depths.

Under Class B stability conditions, wind direction fluctuations and the vertical mixing depth are less pronounced because of a decrease in the amount of solar heating. Under Class C stability conditions, solar heating is weak along with horizontal and vertical fluctuations because of a combination of thermal and mechanical turbulence. Under Class D stability conditions, vertical moti ons are primarily generated by mechanical turbulence. Under Class E and Class F stability conditions, air pollution emitted into the atmosphere travels downwind with poor dispersion. The dispersive power of the atmosphere decreases with progression through the categories from A to F.

With respect to the SJVAB, Classes D through F are predominant during the late fall and winter because of cool temperatures and entrapment of cold air near the surface. March and August are transition months with equally occurring percentages of Class F and Class A. During the spring months of April and May , and the summer months of June and July, Class A is predominant. The fall months of September, October, and November have comparable percentages of Class A and Class F.

An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions influence the mixing depth of the atmosphere, which is the vertical depth available for diluting air pollution near the ground, thus significantly affecting air quality conditions . The SJVAB experiences both surface -based and elevated inversions. The shallow surface-based inversions are present in the morning but are often broken by daytime heating of the

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 5 air layers near the ground. The deep elevated inversions occur less frequentl y than the surface -based inversions but generally result in more severe stagnation. The surface-based inversions occur more frequently in the fall, and the stronger elevated inversions usually occur during December and January.

AIR POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Criteria Air Pollutants
For the protection of public health and welfare, the Federal Clean Air Act ( FCAA) required that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various pollutants. These pollutants are referred to as "criter ia" pollutants because the U.S. EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount an air pollutant can be present in ambient air. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time period, such as 1 hour, 8 hours, 24 hours, or 1 year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. Standards established for the protection of human health are referred to as primary standards; whereas, standards established for the prevention of environmental and property damage are called secondary standards. The FCAA allows states to adopt additional or mor e health -protective standards. The air quality regulatory framework and ambient air quality standards are discussed in greater detail later in this report.

The following provides a summary discussion of the primary and secondary criteria air pollutants of primary concern. In general, primary pollutants are directly emitted into the atmosphere, and secondary pollutants are formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Ozone (O3) is a reactive gas consisting of three atoms of oxygen. In the troposphere, i t is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. It is a secondary pollutant that is formed when oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds react in the presence of sunlight. O3 at the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a criteria pollutant. It is a major component of smog. In the stratosphere, O3 exists naturally and shields Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

High concentrations of ground-level O3 can adversely affect the human respiratory system and aggravate cardiovascular disease and many respiratory ailments. O3 also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities, crops, and some man-made materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastics.

Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) is a reactive chemical gas, composed of hydrocarbon compounds that may contribute to the formation of smog by their involvement in atmospheric chemical reactions. No separate health standards exist for ROG as a group. Because some compounds that make up ROG are also toxic, like the carcinogen benzene, they are often evaluated as part of a toxic risk assessment. Total Organic Gases (TOGs) include all of the ROGs, in addition to low reactivity organic compounds like methane and acetone.

ROGs and volatile organic compounds are subsets of TOG.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are hydrocarbon compounds that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and may also be toxic. VOC emissions are a major precursor to the formation of O3. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) are a family of gaseous nitrogen compounds and are a precursor to the formation of O3 and particulate matter. The major component of NO X, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), is a reddish-brown gas that is toxic at high concentrations. NO X results primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels under high temperatures and pressure. On-road and off-road motor vehicles and fuel combustion are the major sources of this air pollutant.

Particulate Matter (PM), also known as particle pollution, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is ma de up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. U.S. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 6 effects. U.S. EPA groups particle pollution into three categories based on their size and where they are deposited (ARB 2020c):
• "Inhalable coarse particles (PM10)," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter. PM10 is deposited in the thoracic region of the lungs. • "Fine particles (PM2.5)," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air. They penetrate deeply into the thoracic and alveolar regions of the lungs.
• “Ultrafine particles (UFP),” are very small particles less than 0.1 micrometers in diameter largely resulting from the combustion of fossils fuels, meat, wood , and other hydrocarbons. While UFP mass is a small portion of PM2.5, its high surface area, deep lung penetration, and transfer into the bloodstream can result in disproportionate health impacts relative to their mass.

PM10, PM2.5, and UFP include primary pollutants (emitted directly to the atmosphere) as well as secondary pollutants (formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions among precursors). Generally speaking, PM 2.5 and UFP are emitted by combustion sources like vehicles, power generation, industrial processes, and wood burning, while PM10 sources include these same sources plus roads and farming activities. Fugitive windblown dust and other area sources also represent a source of airborne dust.

Numerous scientific studies have linked both long- and short-term particulate matter exposure to a variety of health problems. Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis , and even premature death. Short -term exposures to particles (hours or days) can aggravate lung disease, causing asthma attacks and also acute (short-term) bronchitis, and may also increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. In people with heart disease, short -term exposures have been linked to heart attacks and arrhythmias. Healthy children and adults have not been reported to suffer serious effects from short -term exposures, although they may experience temporary minor irritation when particle levels are elevated.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas that is highly toxic. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air (unlike O3). The main source of CO is on -road motor vehicles. Other CO sources include other mobile sources, miscellaneous processes, and fuel combustion from stationary sources. Because of the local nature of CO problems, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and U.S. EPA designate urban areas as CO nonattainment areas instead of the entire basin as with O3 and PM10.

Motor vehicles are by far the largest source of CO emissions. Emissions from motor vehicles have been declining since 1985, despite increases in vehicle miles traveled, with the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover (Caltrans 1996).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a "rotten egg" smell forme d primarily by the combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. However, like airborne NOX, suspended oxides of sulfur (SOX) particles contribute to poor visibility. These SO X particles can also combine with other pollutants to form PM 2.5. The prevalence of low-sulfur fuel use has minimized problems from this pollutant.

Lead (Pb) is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Pb is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, so it essentially persists forever. The health effects of Pb poisoning include loss of appetite, weakness, apathy, and miscarriage. Pb can also cause lesions of the neuromuscular system, circulatory system, brain, and gastrointestinal tract. Gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne Pb through the use of leaded fuels. The use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out, with the result that ambient concentrations of Pb have dropped dramatically.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2S) is associated with geothermal activity, oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, and confined animal feeding operations. H2S is extremely hazardous in high concentrations; especially in enclosed spaces (800 parts per million [ppm] can ca use death). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates workplace exposure to H2S.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 7 Other Pollutants
The State of California has established air quality standards for some pollutants not addressed by Federal standards. The ARB has established State standards for H2S, sulfates, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. The following section summarizes these pollutants and describes the pollutants’ physical properties, health and other effects, sources, and the extent of the problems.

Sulfates (SO 42-) are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. SO42- occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum- derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to SO 2 during the combustion process and subsequently converted to SO42- compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO2 to SO42- takes place rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features.

The ARB SO42- standard is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory symptoms. Effects of SO42-exposure at levels above the standard include a decrease in ventilator function, aggravation of asthmatic symptoms, and an increased risk of cardiopulmonary disease. SO42- are particularly effective in degrading visibility, and, because they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property.

Visibility Reducing Particles are a mixture of suspended particulate matter consisting of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. The standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range.

Vinyl Chloride (C 2H3Cl) is a colorless gas that does not occur naturally. It is formed when other substances such as trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloro -ethylene are broken down. C2H3Cl is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which is used to make a variety of plastic products, including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging materials.

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

The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivit y but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor . An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to al so note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of t he odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

Neither the state nor the federal government has adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources.

The SJVAPCD does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4102, Nuisance. Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to the local government and the SJVAPCD.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 8 Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air, but due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the FCAA or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), and are thus not subject to NAAQS or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively. Instead, the U.S.

EPA and the ARB regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, res pectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with SJVAPCD rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national level, the U.S. EPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. The following provides a summary of the primary TACs of concern within the State of California and related health effects:

Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) was identified as a TAC by the ARB in August 1998. DPM is emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. In California, on -road diesel -fueled vehicles contribute approximately 40 percent of the statewide total DPM emissions , with an additional 57 percent attributed to other mobile sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and transport refrigeration units.

Stationary sources, contributing about 3 percent of emissions, include shipyards, warehouses, heavy equipment repair yards, and oil and gas production operations. Emissions from these sources are from diesel- fueled internal combustion engines. Stationary sources that report DPM emissions also include heavy construction, manufacturers of asphalt paving materials and blocks, and diesel-fueled electrical generation facilities (ARB 2013).

In October 2000, the ARB issued a report entitled: “Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles”, which is commonly referred to as the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (DRRP). The DRRP provides a mechanism for combating the DPM problem. The goal of the DRRP is to reduce concentrations of DPM by 85 percent by the year 2020, in comparison to the year 2000 baseline emissions.

The key elements of the DRRP are to clean up existin g engines through engine retrofit emission control devices, to adopt stringent standards for new diesel engines, and to lower the sulfur content of diesel fuel to protect new, and very effective, advanced technology emission control devices on diesel engin es. When fully implemented, the DRPP will significantly reduce emissions from both old and new diesel -fueled motor vehicles and from stationary sources that burn diesel fuel. In addition to these strategies, the ARB continues to promote the use of alternat ive fuels and electrification. As a result of these actions, DPM concentrations and associated health risks in future years are projected to decline (ARB 2013, ARB 2000).

Exposure to DPM can have immediate health effects. DPM can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, Exposure to DPM also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or inte nsity of asthma attacks. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Because children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more suscep tible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children. In California, DPM has been identified as a carcinogen.

Acetaldehyde is a federal HAP. The ARB identified acetaldehyde as a TAC in April 1993. Acetaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical oxidation. Sources of acetaldehyde include emissions from combustion pr ocesses such as exhaust from mobile sources and fuel combustion from stationary internal combustion engines, boilers, and process heaters. A majority of the statewide acetaldehyde emissions can be attributed to mobile sources, including

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 9 on-road motor vehicles, construction and mining equipment, aircraft, recreational boats, and agricultural equipment. Area sources of emissions include the burning of wood in residential fireplaces and wood stoves.

The primary stationary sources of acetaldehyde are fuel combustion from the petroleum industry (ARB 2013).

Acute exposure to acetaldehyde results in effects including irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.

Symptoms of chronic intoxication of acetaldehyde resemble those of alcoholism. The U.S. EPA has classified acetaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen. In California, acetaldehyde was classified on April 1, 1988, as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer (U.S. EPA 2014, ARB 2013).

Benzene is highly carcinogenic and occurs throughout Californ ia. The ARB identified b enzene as a TAC in January 1985. A majority of benzene emitted in California (roughly 88 percent) comes from motor vehicles, including evaporative leakage and unburned fuel exhaust. These sources include on-road motor vehicles, recreational boats, off-road recreational vehicles, and lawn and garden equipment. Benzene is also formed as a partial combustion product of larger aromatic fuel components. To a lesser extent, i ndustry-related stationary sources are also sources of benzene emissions. The primary stationary sources of reported benzene emissions are crude petroleum and natural gas mining, petroleum refining, and electric generation that involves the use of petroleum products . The primary area sources include residential combustion of various types such as cooking and water heating (ARB 2013).

Acute inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. Chronic inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic anemia, in occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse effects on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests.

Increased incidences of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) have been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. The U.S. EPA has classified benzene as a known human carcinogen for all routes of exposure (U.S. EPA 2014).
1,3-butadiene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1992. Most of the emissions of 1,3 -butadiene are from incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuels. Mobi le sources account for a majority of the total statewide emissions. Additional sources include agricultural waste burning , open burning associated with forest management, petroleum refining, manufacturing of synthetics and man-made materials, and oil and gas extraction. The primary natural sources of 1,3-butadiene emissions are wildfires (ARB 2013).

Acute exposure to 1,3 -butadiene by inhalation in humans results in irritation of the eyes, nasal passages, throat, and lungs. Epidemiological studies have repo rted a possible association between 1,3 -butadiene exposure and cardiovascular diseases. Epidemiological studies of workers in rubber plants have shown an association between 1,3 -butadiene exposure and increased incidence of leukemia. Animal studies have reported tumors at various sites from 1,3-butadiene exposure. In California, 1,3-butadiene has been identified as a carcinogen.

Carbon Tetrachloride was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1987 under California’s TAC program (ARB 2013).

The primary stationary sources reporting emissions of carbon tetrachloride include chemical and allied product manufacturers and petroleum refineries. In the past, carbon tetrachloride was used for dry cleaning and as a grain fumigant. Usage for these purposes is no longer allowed in the United States. Carbon tetrachloride has not been registered for pesticid e use in California since 1987. Also, the use of carbon tetrachloride in products to be used indoors has been discontinued in the United States. The statewide emissions of carbon tetrachloride are small (about 1.96 tons per year), and background concentrations account for most of the health risks (ARB 2013).

The primary effects of carbon tetrachloride in humans are on the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system.

Human symptoms of acute inhalation and oral exposures to carbon tetrachloride include headache, weakness, lethargy, nausea, and vomiting. Acute exposures to higher levels and chronic (long -term) inhalation or oral exposure to carbon tetrachloride produces liver and kidney damage in humans. Human data on the carcinogenic effects of carbon tetrachloride are limited. Studies in animals have shown that ingestion of carbon tetrachloride increases the risk of liver cancer. In California, carbon tetrachloride has been identified as a carcinogen.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 10 Hexavalent chromium was identified as a TAC in 1986. Sources of Hexavalent chromium include industrial metal finishing processes, such as chrome plating and chromic acid anodizing, and firebrick lining of glass furnaces. Other sources include mobile sources, including gasoline motor vehicles , trains, and ships (ARB 2013).

The respiratory tract is the major target organ for hexavalent chromium toxicity, for acute and chronic inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, coughing, a nd wheezing were reported from a case of acute exposure to hexavalent chromium, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure.

Human studies have established that inhaled hexavalent chromium is a human carcinogen, resulting in an increased risk of lung cancer. In California, hexavalent chromium has been identified as a carcinogen.

Para‐Dichlorobenzene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in April 1993. The primary area -wide sources that have reported emissions of para-dichlorobenzene include consumer products such as non -aerosol insect repellants and solid/gel air fresheners. These sources contribute to nearly all of the statewide para - dichlorobenzene emissions (ARB 2013).

Acute exposure to paradichlorobenzene via inhalation results in irritation to the eyes, skin, and throat in humans. In addition, long-term inhalation exposure may affect the liver, skin, and central nervous system in humans. The U.S. EPA has classified para-dichlorobenzene as a possible human carcinogen.

Formaldehyde was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1992. Formaldehyde is both directly emitted into the atmosphere and formed in the atmosphere as a result of photochemical oxidation. Photochemical oxidation is the largest source of formaldehyde concentrations in California ambient air. Directly emitted formaldehyde is a product of incomplete combustion. One of the primary sources of directly emitted formaldehyd e is vehicular exhaust. Formaldehyde is also used in resins, can be found in many consumer products as an antimicrobial agent, and is also used in fumigants and soil disinfectants. The primary area sources of formaldehyde emissions include wood burning in residential fireplaces and wood stoves (ARB 2013).

Exposure to formaldehyde may occur by breathing contaminated indoor air, tobacco smoke, or ambient urban air. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to formaldehyde in humans can result in respiratory symptoms, and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Limited human studies have reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. F ormaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

Methylene Chloride was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1987. Methylene chloride is used as a solvent, a blowing and cleaning agent in the manufacture of polyurethane foam and plastic fabrication, and as a solvent in paint stripping operations. Paint removers account for the largest use of methylene chloride in California, where methylene chloride is the main ingredient in many paint stripping formulations. Plastic product manufacturers, manufactur ers of synthetics, and aircraft and parts manufacturers are stationary sources reporting emissions of methylene chloride (ARB 2013).

The acute effects of methylene chloride inhalation in humans consist mainly of nervous system effects including decreased visual, auditory, and motor functions, but these effects are reversible once exposure ceases. The effects of chronic exposure to methylene chloride suggest that the central nervous system is a potential target in humans and animals. Human data are inconclu sive regarding methylene chloride and cancer. Animal studies have shown increases in liver and lung cancer and benign mammary gland tumors following the inhalation of methylene chloride. In California, methylene chloride has been identified as a carcinogen.

Perchloroethylene was identified by the ARB as a TAC in 1991. Perchloroethylene is used as a solvent, primarily in dry cleaning operations. Perchloroethylene is also used in degreasing operations, paints and coatings, adhesives, aerosols, specialty chem ical production, printing inks, silicones, rug shampoos, and laboratory solvents. In California, the stationary sources that have reported emissions of perchloroethylene are dry cleaning plants, aircraft part and equipment manufacturers, and fabricated metal product manufacturers.

The primary area sources include consumer products such as automotive brake cleaners and tire sealants and inflators (ARB 2013).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 11 Acute inhalation exposure to perchloroethylene vapors can result in irritation of the upper respirato ry tract and eyes, kidney dysfunction, and at lower concentrations, neurological effects, such as reversible mood and behavioral changes, impairment of coordination, dizziness, headaches sleepiness, and unconsciousness. Chronic inhalation exposure can result in neurological effects, including sensory symptoms such as headaches, impairments in cognitive and motor neurobehavioral functioning, and color vision decrements. Cardiac arrhythmia, liver damage, and possible kidney damage may also occur. In California, perchloroethylene has been identified as a carcinogen.

ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals found in many parts of California. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types are also found in California.

Serpentine rock often contains chrysotile asbestos. Serpentine rock, and its parent material, ultramafic rock, are abundant in the Sierra foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges.

Asbestos is commonly found in ultramafic rock, including serpentine, and near fault zones. The amount of asbestos that is typically present in these rocks ranges from less than 1 percent up to about 25 percent, and sometimes more. Asbestos is released from ultramafic and serpentine rock when it is broken or crushed. This can happen when cars drive over unpaved roads or driveways which are surfaced with these rocks wh en land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. It is also released naturally through weathering and erosion. Once released from the rock, asbestos can become airborne and may stay in the air for long periods of time.

Additional sources of asbestos include building materials and other manmade materials. The most common sources are heat-resistant insulators, cement, furnace or pipe coverings, inert filler material, fireproof gloves and clothing, and brake linings. Asbestos has been used in the United States since the early 1900s; however, asbestos is no longer allowed as a constituent in most home products and materials. Many older buildings, schools, and homes still have asbestos-containing products.

Naturally-occurring asbestos was identified by ARB as a TAC in 1986 . The ARB has adopted two statewide control measures which prohibit the use of serpentine or ultramafic rock for unpaved surfacing and controls dust emissions from construction, grading, and surface mining in areas with the se rocks. Various other laws have also been adopted, including laws related to the control of asbestos -containing materials during the renovation and demolition of buildings.

All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer. Healt h risks to people are dependent upon their asbestos exposure. The longer a person is exposed to asbestos and the greater the intensity of the exposure, the greater the chances for a health problem. Asbestos -related diseases, such as lung cancer, may not occur for decades after breathing asbestos fibers. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer from asbestos exposure.

VALLEY FEVER
Valley fever is an infection caused by the fungus Coccidioides. The scientific name for valley fever is “coccidioidomycosis,” and it’s also sometimes called “desert rheumatism.” The term “valley fever” usually refers to Coccidioides infection in the lungs, but the infection can spread to other parts of the body in severe cases.

Coccidioides spores circulate in the air after contaminated soil and dust are disturbed by humans, animals, or the weather. The spores are too small to see without a microscope. When people breathe in the spores, they are at risk for developing valley fever. After the spores enter the lungs, the person’s body temperature allows the spores to change shape and grow into spherules. When the spherules get large enough, they break open and release smaller pieces (called endospores) which can then potentially spread within the lungs or to other organs and grow into new spherules. In extremely rare cases, the fungal spores can enter the skin through a cut, wound, or splinter and cause a skin infection.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 12 Symptoms of valley fever may appear between 1 and 3 weeks after exposure. Symptoms commonly include fatigue, coughing, fever, shortness of breath, headaches, night sweats, muscle aches, joint pain, and rashes on the upper body or legs.

Approximately 5 to 10 percent of people who get valley fever will develop serious or long -term problems in their lungs. In an even smaller percentage of people (about 1 percent), the infection spreads from the lungs to other parts of the body, such as the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), skin, or bones and joints. Certain groups of people may be at higher risk for developing severe forms of valley fever, such as people who have weakened immune systems. The fungus that causes valley fever, Coccidioides, can’t spread from the lungs between people or between people and animals. However, in extremely rare instances, a wound infection with Coccidioides can spread valley fever to someone else, or the infection can be spread through an organ transplant with an infected organ.

For many people, the symptoms of valley fever will go away within a few months without any tr eatment.

Healthcare providers choose to prescribe antifungal medication for some people to try to reduce the severity of symptoms or prevent the infection from getting worse. Antifungal medication is typically given to people who are at higher risk for dev eloping severe valley fever. The treatment typically occurs over a period of roughly 3 to 6 months. In some instances, longer treatment may be required. If valley fever develops into meningitis, life-long antifungal treatment is typically necessary.

Scientists continue to study how weather and climate patterns affect the habitat of the fungus that causes valley fever. Coccidioides are thought to grow best in the soil after heavy rainfall and then disperse into the air most effectively during hot, dry conditions. For example, hot and dry weather conditions have been shown to correlate with an increase in the number of valley fever cases in Arizona and California. How climate change may be affecting the number of valley fever infections, as well as the g eographic range of Coccidioides, isn’t known yet but is a subject for further research (CDC 2020).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Air quality within the SJVAB is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. EPA, ARB, and the SJVAPCD.

Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation. Although U.S. EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.

FEDERAL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The U.S.

EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.

Federal Clean Air Act
The FCAA required the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS, and also set deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non -health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. NAAQS are summarized in Table AQ-1.

The FCAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution.

The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The U.S. EPA has a responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the FCAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 13 Table AQ-1. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging
Time California Standards National Standards
(Primary)
Ozone
(O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm –
8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
AAM 20 μg/m3 –
24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
AAM 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
8-hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
AAM 0.030 ppm 53 ppb
1-hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
AAM – 0.03 ppm
24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
3-hour – –
1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Lead
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3 –
Calendar Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3
No
Federal
Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour
Extinction coefficient:

0.23/kilometer-visibility of 10
miles or more (0.07-30 miles or
more for Lake Tahoe) due to
particles when the relative
humidity is less than 70%.

Source: ARB 2020a
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act first authorized the U.S. EPA to regulate asbestos in schools and public and commercial buildings under Title II of the law , which is also known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). AHERA requires Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to inspect their schools for asbestos- containing building materials (ACBM) and prepare management plans to reduce the asbestos hazard. The Act also established a program for the training and accreditation of individuals performing certain types of asbestos work.

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the U.S. EPA established the NESHAP. These are technology-based source- specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 14 STATE
California Air Resources Board
The ARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts (APCD) and air quality management districts ), establishing CAAQS, which in many c ases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The CAAQS are summarized in Table AQ-1.

The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel, and engine used.

California Clean Air Act
The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2, and NO 2 by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area -wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a 5 percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3 -year periods, in district -wide emissions of each non - attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.

California Assembly Bill 170
AB 170, Reyes, was adopted by state lawmakers in 2003 creating Government Code Section 65302.1 which requires cities and counties in t he San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies , and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality.

Assembly Bills 1807 & 2588 - Toxic Air Contaminants
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TA Cs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation This regulation requires fleets that operate in California to reduce diesel truck and bus emissions by retrofitting or replacing existing engines. Amendments were adopted in December 2010 to provide more time for fleets to comply. The amended regulation require d installation of PM retrofits beginning January 1, 2012 , and replacement of older trucks starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all vehicles would need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation has provisions to provide extra credit for PM filters installed prior t o July 2011, has delayed requirements for fleets with 3 or fewer vehicles, provisions for agricultural vehicles, and other situations.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit School Bus Idling at Schools ARB has approved an airborne toxic control measure (ATCM) that limits school bus idling and idling at or near schools to only when necessary for safety or operational concerns. The ATCM requires a driver of a school bus or vehicle, transit bus, or other commercial motor vehicles to manually turn off the bus or vehicle engine upon arriving at a school and to restart no more than 30 seconds before departing. A driver of a school bus

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 15 or vehicle is subject to the same requirement when operating within 100 feet of a school and is prohibited from idling more tha n 5 minutes at each stop beyond schools, such as parking or maintenance facilities, school bus stops, or school activity destinations. A driver of a transit bus or other commercial motor vehicle is prohibited from idling more than 5 minutes at each stop wi thin 100 feet of a school. Idling necessary for health, safety, or operational concerns is exempt from these restrictions. In addition, the ATCM requires a motor carrier of an affected bus or vehicle to ensure that drivers are informed of the idling requir ements, track complaints and enforcement actions, and keep records of these driver education and tracking activities. This ATCM became effective in July 2003.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
The SJVAPCD is the agency primarily responsibl e for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SJVAB, within which the proposed project is located.

Responsibilities of the SJVAPCD include, but are not limited to, preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution, inspecting stationary sources of air pollution and responding to citizen compla ints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing programs and regulations required by the FCAA and the CCAA. The SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations that apply to the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions). Regulation VIII (Rules 8011-8081). This regulation is a series of rules designed to reduce particulate emissions generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, carryout and track out, paved and unpaved roads, bulk material handling and storage, unpaved vehicle/traffic areas, open space areas, etc. • Rule 4002 (NESHAP). This rule may apply to projects in which portions of an existing building would be renovated, partially demolished or removed. With regard to asbestos, the NESHAP specifies work practices to be f ollowed during renovation, demolition , or other abatement activities when friable asbestos is involved. Prior to demolition activity, an asbestos survey of the existing structure may be required to identify the presence of any ACBM. Removal of identified A CBM must be removed by a certified asbestos contractor in accordance with OSHA requirements. • Rule 4102 (Nuisance). Applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.
• Rule 4103 (Open Burning). This rule regulates th e use of open burning and specifies the types of materials that may be open burned. Section 5.1 of this rule prohibits the burning of trees and other vegetative (non -agricultural) material whenever the land is being developed for non -agricultural purposes.
• Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings). Limits volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. • Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). This rule applies to the manufacture and use of cutback, slow cure, and emulsified asphalt during paving and maintenance operations.
• Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review [ISR]). Requires developers of larger residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial projects to reduce smog -forming and particulate emissions from their projects’ baselines. If project emissions still exceed the minimum baseline reductions, a project’s developer will be required to mitigate the difference by paying an off -site fee to the District, which would then be used to fund clean -air projects. For projects subject to this rule, the ISR rule requires developers to mitigate and/or offset emissions suff icient to achieve: (1) 20 -percent reduction of construction equipment exhaust NOx; (2) 45 -percent reduction of construction equipment exhaust PM10; (3) 33 -percent reduction of operational NOx over 10 years; and (4) 50 -percent reduction of operational PM10 over 10 years. SJVAPCD ISR applications must be filed “no later than applying for a final discretionary approval with a public agency.”

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 16 REGULATORY ATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS
Under the CCAA, ARB is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonat tainment, or unclassified with respect to applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant c oncentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria.

Depending on the frequency and severity of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment designation. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for ozone, CO, and NO 2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” However, ARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is more frequently used. The U.S. EPA uses the same sub -categories for nonattainment status: serious, severe, and extreme. In 1991, U.S. EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate national PM10 standards.

All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
The state and federal attainment status designations pertaining to the SJVAB are summarized in Table AQ-2.

The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. The SJVAB is designated nonattainment for the national 8-hour O3 and PM 2.5 standards. On September 25, 2008, the U.S. EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the PM10 Maintenance Plan (SJVAPCD 2020).

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
Air pollutant concentrations were measured at two monitoring station s in Fresno County. The Fresno- Drummond Street (4706 East Drummond Avenue) monitor ing station and Fresno -Hamilton and Winery (Hamilton and Winery) monitoring s tation are the closest representative monitoring site s to the proposed project site with sufficient data to meet U.S. EPA and/or ARB criteria for quality assurance. The monitoring stations provide ambient concentrations of O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Ambient monitoring data was obtained for the last 3 years of available measurement data (i.e., 2017 through 2019) and are summarized in Table AQ-

3. As depicted, the state and national O3 standards, state PM10 standards, and national PM2.5 standards were exceeded on numerous occasions during the past 3 years.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 17 Table AQ-2. SJVAB Attainment Status Designations
Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation
Ozone, 1 hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe
Ozone, 8 hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility-reducing particulates No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
For more information visit website URL: https://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm.

Source: SJVAPCD 2020
Table AQ-3. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data 2017 2018 2019
Ozone1
Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour average) 0.125/0.104 0.119/0.097 0.099/0.080 Number of days state 1-hour standard exceeded 8 6 1
Number of days state/national 8-hour standard exceeded 31/29 34/32 11/10 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)1
Maximum concentration (1-hour average) 64.7 75.9 42.3
Annual average NA 13 NA
Number of days state/national standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)1
Maximum concentration (state/national) 120.5/115.6 154.8/152.2 181.3/175.6 Number of days state standard exceeded
(measured/calculated3) 17/112 19/116 13/78
Number of days national standard exceeded
(measured/calculated3) 0/0 0/0 1/6
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5)2
Maximum concentration (state/national) 88.3/88.3 89.8/89.8 44.7/44.7 Annual Average (state/national) 15.0/15.0 NA/17.1 NA/11.2 Number of days national standard exceeded 9 11 3
ppm = parts per million by volume; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = not available

1. Ambient O3, NO2, and PM10 data were obtained from the Fresno-Drummond Street (4706 East Drummond Avenue) monitoring station.

2. Ambient PM2.5 data were obtained from the Fresno-Hamilton and Winery (Hamilton and Winery) monitoring station.

3. Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the standard. Calculated days are the estimated n umber of days that measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day.

Source: ARB 2020b

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the population who are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of air pollution termed "sensitive receptors." The term sensitive receptors refer to speci fic population groups, as well as the land uses where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups are children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses wo uld include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Residential dwellings, schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals are examples of sensitive land uses.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 18 Nearby existing land uses consist predominantly of residential, agriculture, industrial, commercial, and utility.

The nearest sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the proposed project site include residential dwellings, which are located approximately 35 feet west of the western property boundary and approximately 100 feet east of the eastern project boundary along Willow Avenue.

IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY
Short-term Impacts
Short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer program. Emissions were quantified for site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023. Detailed construction information, including construction schedule and equipment requirements, have not been identified for the proposed project. Default construction schedule and equipment assumptions contained in the CalEEMod were, therefore, relied upon for the calculation of construction - generated emissions. Due to anticipated reductions in future fleet-average emission rates, emissions for post- year 2021 conditions would likely be less. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A.

Long-term Impacts
Long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the proposed project were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Emissions modeling included quantification of emissions associated with area sources, energy use, and mobile sources. Area sources included the use of architectural coatings and landscape maintenance activities. Energy use included emissions associated with natural gas and electricity use. Trip-generation rates for the proposed land use were derived from the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed project (PEG 2021). Mobile-source emissions were conservatively based on the default fleet distribution assumptions contained in the model and include mobile-source emission adjustments to account for the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One. The initial operation of the project is anticipated to begin in 2024. Due to anticipated reductions in future fleet-average mobile-source and energy emission rates, emissions for post-year 2024 conditions would likely be less. Exposure to localized pollutant concentrations, including fugitive dust, mobile-source CO, and odors was qualitatively assessed.

Furthermore, the following types of fuel would be used during live-fire training: Class A (solid) fuel, (typically wood pallets and straw) and Class B (gas) fuel, (propane). Class A fuel would be used approximately 10 to 15 days out of the year for burning. Live fire training would also include the following off-road equipment:
gas-powered chainsaws, rotary saws, and positive pressure fans. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Appendix A of this report. Emission calculations are included in Appendix B of this report.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Initial Study Checklist, a project would be considered to have a significant impact to climate change if it would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net in crease of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such a s those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the SJVAPCD has published the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (SJVAPCD 2015). This guidance document includes recommended thresholds of significance to be used for the evaluation of short-term construction, long-term operational, odor, TAC, and cumulative air quality impacts. Accordingly, the SJVAPCD -recommended

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 19 thresholds of signi ficance are used to determine whether implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant air quality impact. The thresholds of significance are summarized below. • Short-term Emissions —Construction impacts associated with the proposed proj ect would b e considered significant if project-generated emissions would exceed 100 tons/year of CO, 10 tons/year of ROG or NOX, 27 tons/year of SOX, or 15 tons/year of PM10 or PM2.5. • Long-term Emissions —Operational impacts associated with the proposed pr oject would be considered significant if project-generated emissions would exceed 100 tons/year of CO, 10 tons/year of ROG or NOX, 27 tons/year of SOX, or 15 tons/year of PM10 or PM2.5. • Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan—Due to the region’s non- attainment status for O3, PM2.5, and PM10, if project -generated emissions of O3 precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NO x) or PM would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans. • Local Mobile -Source CO Concentrations —Local mobile source impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if the project contributes to CO concentrations at receptor locations in excess of the CAAQS (i.e., 9.0 ppm for 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour). • Exposure to TACs would be considered significant if the probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (i.e., maximum individual risk) would exceed 20 in one million or would result in a Hazard Index equal or greater than 1.
• Odor impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if the project has the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors.

In addition to the above thresholds, the SJVAPCD also recommends the use of average -daily emissions thresholds for the evaluation of project impacts on localized ambient air quality conditions. Accordingly, the project would also be considered to result in a significant contribution to localized ambient air quality if on - site emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, or SO2 associated with either short-term construction or long-term operational activities would exceed a daily average of 100 pounds per day (lb s/day) for each of the pollutants evaluated (SJVAPCD 2015). It is important to note that the SJVAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance were developed taking into account the achievement and maintenance of applicable ambient air quality standards (refer to Table AQ-1). As previously noted, these standards represent the upper limits deemed necessary to adequately protect public health and welfare. Potential health-related impacts for criteria air pollutants are discussed earlier in this report. Therefore, projects that do not exceed SJVAPCD’s recommended significance thresholds would also be considered to have a less-than-significant impact with regard to potential health-related impacts.

PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact AQ-A. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
In accordance with the SJVAPCD-recommended methodology for the assessment of air quality impacts, projects that result in significant air quality impacts at the project level are also considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As noted in Impact AQ -B, short-term construction and long -term operational emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance. In addition, the proposed project’s contribution to localized concentrations of emissions, including emissions of CO , TACs, and odors, are considered less than significant. However, as noted in Impact AQ-C, the proposed project could result in a significant contribution to localized PM concentrations for which the SJVAB is currently designated nonattainment. For th is reason, implementation of the proposed project could conflict with air quality attainment or maintenance planning efforts. Therefore, this impact would be considered potentially significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 20 Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (refer to Impact AQ-C).

Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 this impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact AQ-B. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The proposed project is located in the County of Fresno, which is within the SJVAB. The SJVAB is designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards; and the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. Potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project could occur during project construction or operation. Short-term construction and long-term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are discussed, as follows:

Short-term Construction Emissions
Short-term increases in emissions would occur during the construction phase. Construction-generated emissions are of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to cause a significant air quality impact. The construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with motor vehicle exhaust from construction equipment and worker trips; as well as, the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces.

Estimated annual construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table AQ-4. As noted in Table AQ-4, construction of the proposed project would generate maximum annual emissions of approximately 0.51 tons/year of ROG, 2.18 tons/year of NOx, 2.26 tons/year of CO, less than 0.01 tons/year of SO2, 0.35 tons/year of PM10, and 0.21 tons/year of PM2.5. Estimated construction-generated annual emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds of 10 tons/year of ROG, 10 tons/year of NO x, 100 tons/year of CO, 27 tons/year of SOx,15 tons/year of PM10, or 15 tons/year of PM2.5.

Construction of the proposed project would generate maximum daily on-site emissions of approximately 3.78 pounds/day of ROG, 18.47 pounds/day of NO x, 17.62 pounds/day of CO, 0.03 pounds/day of SO 2, 2.36 pounds/day of PM10, and 1.50 pounds/day of PM2.5. Estimated construction-generated daily on-site emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds of 10 0 pounds/day of ROG, 10 0 pounds/day of NOx, 100 pounds/day of CO, 100 pounds/day of SOx, 100 pounds/day of PM10, or 100 pounds/day of PM2.5.

Table AQ-4. Annual and Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
tons per year
2021 0.15 1.51 1.07 0.00 0.35 0.21
2022 0.24 2.18 2.26 0.00 0.16 0.11
2023 0.51 0.73 0.88 0.00 0.05 0.04
Maximum 0.51 2.18 2.26 0.00 0.35 0.21
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 3.78 18.47 17.62 0.03 2.36 1.50 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day = Pounds per day
Refer to Appendix A for modeling assumptions and results.

Short-term construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on regional or local air quality conditions. Furthermore, i t is important to note that project construction would be required to comply with SJVPACD Regulation VIII Control Measures Construction Emissions of PM 10. Compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII would reduce emissions of PM by approximately 50 percent, or more. Given that project-generated emissions would not exceed applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 21 Long-term Operational Emissions
Estimated annual operational emissions for the anticipated opening year (year 2024) of the proposed project are summarized in Table AQ-5. As depicted, the proposed project would result in annual operational emissions of approximately 1.02 tons/year of ROG, 3.83 tons/year of NOX, 6.98 tons/year of CO, 0.05 tons/year of SO2, 2.07 tons/year of PM10, and 0.66 tons/year of PM2.5. Estimated operational-generated annual emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds of 10 tons/year of ROG, 10 tons/year of NO x, 100 tons/year of CO, 27 tons/year of SOx,15 tons/year of PM10, or 15 tons/year of PM2.5.

Operation of the proposed project would generate maximum daily on-site emissions of approximately 7.87 pounds/day of ROG, 29.47 pounds/day of NOx, 53.68 pounds/day of CO, 0.39 pounds/day of SO2, 15.91 pounds/day of PM10, and 5.04 pounds/day of PM2.5. Estimated operational-generated daily on-site emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds of 100 pounds/day of ROG, 100 pounds/day of NOx, 100 pounds/day of CO, 100 pounds/day of SOx, 100 pounds/day of PM10, or 100 pounds/day of PM2.5.

Table AQ-5. Annual and Daily Operational Emissions without Mitigation Category ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
tons per year
Area 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.32 3.68 3.97 0.03 1.71 0.47
Live Fire Training 0.40 0.08 2.95 0.02 0.35 0.18
Total 1.02 3.83 6.98 0.05 2.07 0.66
SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No No No No No
Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 7.87 29.47 53.68 0.39 15.91 5.04 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Exceeds Significance Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day = Pounds per day
Includes mobile source emission adjustments to account for SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One.

Refer to Appendix A for modeling assumptions and results.

The long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on regional or local air quality conditions. Operational emissions would be projected to decline in future years, with improvements in fuel consumption emissions standards. It is important to note that estimated operational emissions are conservatively based on the default vehicle fleet distribution assumptions contained in the model, which include contributions from medium and heavy-duty trucks. Mobile sources associated with the proposed land use would consist predominantly of light -duty vehicles. As a result, actual mobile source emissions would likely be less than estimated. Operational emissions would not exceed applicable SJVAPCD significance thresholds, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact AQ-C. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the proposed project site consist predominantly of residential dwellings. The nearest residential dwelling is located approximately 35 feet west of the western property boundary and 100 feet east of the easte rn project boundary along Willow Avenue . Long-term operational and short-term construction activities and emission sources that could adversely impact the nearest sensitive receptors are discussed, as follows:

Long-term Operation
Localized Mobile-Source CO Emissions
CO is the primary criteria air pollutant of local concern associated with the proposed project. Under specific meteorological and operational conditions, such as areas of heavily congested vehicle traffic, CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels. If inhaled, CO can be adsorbed easily by the bloodstream and inhibit oxygen delivery to the body, which can cause significant health effects ranging from slight headaches

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 22 to death. The most serious effects are felt by individuals susceptible to oxygen deficiencies, including people with anemia and those suffering from chronic lung or heart disease.

Mobile-source emissions of CO are a direct function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. The transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. For this reason, m odeling of mobile-source CO concentrations is typically recommended for sensitive land uses located near signalized roadway intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS). Localized CO concentrations associated with the proposed project would be considered less-than-significant if: (1) traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in deterioration of a signalized intersection to LOS E or LOS F; or (2) the project would not contribute additional traffic to a signalized intersection that already operates at LOS E or LOS F.

The nearest signalized intersection in the project area is located at Chestnut Avenue and North Avenue. The intersection is projected to operate at LOS F for cumulative (year 2040) no-project conditions and LOS F for cumulative with-project conditions. However, with the implementation of signalized alternative 1 mitigation, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D, or better, for cumulative with-project conditions (PEG 2021).

As a result, the proposed project would not be anticipated to contribute substantially to localized CO concentrations that would exceed applicable standards. For this reason, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Implementation of the proposed pro ject would not result in the long -term operation of any major onsite stationary sources of TACs, nor would project implementation result in a significant increase in diesel -fueled vehicles traveling along area roadways. No major stationary sources of TACs were identified in the project vicinity that would result in increased exposure of students and employees to TACs. For these reasons, long- term increases in exposure to TACs would be considered less than significant.

Short-term Construction
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Naturally-occurring asbestos, which was identified by ARB as a TAC in 1986, is located in many parts of California and is commonly associated with ultramafic rock. The project site is not located near any areas that are likely to contain ultramafic rock (DOC 2000). As a result, the risk of exposure to asbestos during construction would be considered less than significant.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos -containing material (ACM). Asbestos -containing materials could be encountered during the demolition of existing buildings, particularly older structures constructed prior to 1970. Asbestos can also be found in various building products, including (but not limited to) utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If a project will involve the disturbance or potential disturbance of ACM, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart M-Asbestos NESHAP. These requirements include but are not limited to 1) notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. The proposed project would not include the demolition of existing buildings or structures. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Lead-Coated Materials
Demolition of structures coated with lead-based paint can have potential negative air quality impacts and may adversely affect the health of nearby individuals. Lead-based paints could be encountered during the demolition of existing buildings, particularly older structures constructed prior to 1978. Improper demolition can result in the release of lead -containing particles from the site. Sandblast ing or removal of paint by heating with a heat gun can result in significant emissions of lead. In such instances, proper abatement of

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 23 lead before demolition of these structures must be performed in order to prevent the release of lead from the site. Federal and State lead regulations, including the Lead in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.62) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 8, Section 1532.1, Lead regulate disturbance of lead - containing materials during construction, demolition, and mainte nance-related activities. The proposed project would not include the demolition of existing buildings or structures. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants (Diesel-Exhaust Emissions)
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of DPM emissions during construction associated with the use of off -road diesel equipment for site grading, paving , and other construction activities. Health-related risks associated with diesel exhaust emissions are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. Exposure to construction-generated DPM would not be anticipated to exceed applicable thresholds (i.e., incremental increase in cancer risk of 20 in one million). In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would result in further reductions of on-site DPM emissions. For these reasons, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Localized PM Concentrations
Fugitive dust emissions would be primarily associated with site preparation and grading, and vehicle travel on unpaved and paved surfaces. On -site off -road equipment and trucks would also result in short -term emissions of DPM, which could contribute to elevated localized concentration at nearby receptors.

Uncontrolled emissions of fugitive dust may also contribute to increased occurrences of Valley Fever and potential increases in nuisance impacts to nearby receptors. For these reasons, localized uncontrolled concentrations of construction-generated PM would be considered to have a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure AQ -1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce potential exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to localized pollutant concentrations of fugitive dust associated with project construction:

1. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.

This regulation limits idling from diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California-based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, b. Shall not operate a diesel -fueled auxiliary power system to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.

2. Heavy-duty, off-road diesel -fueled equipment (50 horsepower, or greater) shall comply with the 5 - minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off- Road Diesel regulation.

3. Heavy-duty, off-road diesel-fueled equipment (50 horsepower, or greater) shall be fitted with diesel particulate filters, per manufacturer’s recommendations, or shall meet at minimum Tier 3 emissions standards. To the extent locally available, tier 4 should be used.

4. Signs shall be posted at the project site construction entrance to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.

5. To the extent available, replace fossil -fueled equipment with alternatively-fueled (e.g., natural gas) or electrically-driven equivalents.

6. Construction truck trips shall be scheduled, to the extent feasible, to occur during non-peak hours.

7. The burning of vegetative material shall be prohibited.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 24 8. The proposed project shall comply with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII for the control of fugitive dust emissions.

Regulation VIII can be obtained on the SJVAPCD’s website at website URL:
https://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. At a minimum, the following measures shall be implemented:
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. b. All on-site unpaved roads and off -site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grad ing, cut & fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
d. With the demolition of buildings up to six stories in height, all exterior surfaces of the building shall be wetted during demolition.
e. When materials are transported off -site, all material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
f. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.)
g. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust e missions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
h. Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.
i. An owner/operator of any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day, or 20 or more vehicle trips per day by vehicles with three or more axles shall implement measures to prevent carryout and trackout.
j. On-road vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces of the project site shall be limited to 15 mph. k. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed sufficient to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. l. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. m. Install wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. n. Excavation and grading activities shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 mph (Regardless of wind speed, an owner/operator must comply with Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation).
o. Limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would include measures to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requi rements. The measures would reduce construction -generated emissions that could contribute to increase d localized pollutant concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors. Some measures include requirements that heavy-duty off-road equipment is fitted with diesel-particulate filters or meets Tier 3 emissions standards. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 25 Impact AQ-D. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people?
Other emissions potentially associated with the proposed project would be predominantly from the generation of odors during project construction. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

The construction of the proposed project would involve the use of a variety of gasoline or diesel -powered equipment that would emit exhaust fu mes. Exhaust fumes, particularly diesel exhaust, may be considered objectionable by some people. In addition , pavement coatings and architectural coatings used during project construction would also emit temporary odors. However, construction -generated emissions would occur intermittently throughout the workday and would dissipate rapidly within increasing distance from the source. As a result, short -term construction activities would not expose a substantial number of people to frequent odorous emissions. In addition, no major sources of odors have been identified in the project area.

This impact would be considered less than significant.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 26 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

EXISTING SETTING
To fully understand global climate change , it is important to recognize the naturally occurring “greenhouse effect” and to define the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the e arth’s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high -frequency solar radiation to lower -frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation . As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, are discussed, as follows:
• Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO 2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (U.S. EPA 2018).
• Methane. Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances.

CH4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released into the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human -related and natural sources. Human -related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock an d manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 into the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodie s, non-wetland soils, and other sou rces such as wildfires. CH4 atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years (U.S. EPA 2018).
• Nitrous Oxide. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N 2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human -related sources of N 2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, acid production, and nitric acid production. N 2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 114 years (U.S. EPA 2018). • Hydrofluorocarbons. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone -depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC -23, which is generated as a bypro duct of the production of HCFC -22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC -152a to 270 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes of less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (U.S. EPA 2018).
• Perfluorocarbons. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic.

There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Natural geological emissions have bee n responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, the largest current source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as byproducts. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for PFCs ranges from 2,600 to 50,000 years (U.S. EPA 2018).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 27 • Nitrogen Trifluoride. Nitrogen trifluoride (NF 3) is an inorganic, colorless, odorless, toxic, non flammable gas used as an etchant in micro electronics. NF3 is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chambers in the production of liquid crystal displays and silicon -based thin -film solar cells. It has a global warming potential of 16,100 carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). While NF 3 may have a lower global warming potential than other chemical etchants, it is still a potent GHG. In 2009, NF3 was listed by California as a high global warming potential GHG to be listed and regulated under AB 32 (Section 38505 Health and Safety Code). • Sulfur Hexafluoride. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, non - toxic, and generally non -flammable. SF 6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Leaks of SF6 occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF 6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (U.S. EPA 2018).
• Black Carbon. Black carbon is the strongest light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly by absorbing sunlight and indirectly by depositing on snow and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is considered a short -lived species, which can vary spatially and, consequently, it is very difficult to quantify associated global-warming potentials. The main sources of black carbon in California are wildfires, off -road ve hicles (locomotives, marine vessels, tractors, excavators, dozers, etc.), on -road vehicles (cars, trucks, and buses), fireplaces, agricultural waste burning, and prescribed burning (planned burns of forest or wildlands) (U.S. EPA 2018).

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in CO 2e, which weighs each gas by its global warming potential (GWP). Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Table GHG-1 provides a summary of the GWP for GHG emissions of typical concern with regard to community development projects, based on a 100 -year time horizon. As indicated, CH4 traps over 28-36 times more heat per molecule than CO 2 and N2O absorbs roughly 265-298 times more heat per molecule than CO 2. Additional GHG with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon.

Table GHG-1. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential (100-year)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 28-36
Nitrous Dioxide (N2O) 265-298
Source: EPA 2020

SOURCES OF GHG EMISSIONS
On a global scale, GHG emissions are predominantly associated with activities related to energy production; changes in land use, such as deforestation and land clearing; industrial sources; agricultural activities; transportation; waste and wastewater gene ration; and commercial and residential land uses. Worldwide, energy production including the burning of coal, natural gas, and oil for electricity and heat is typically considered the largest single source of global GHG emissions.

In 2018, GHG emissions within California totaled 42 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e). Within California, the transportation sector is the largest contributor, accounting for roughly 4 0 percent of the total state-wide GHG emissions. Emissions associated with the industrial sector are the second- largest contributor, totaling approximately 21 percent. Emissions from in-state electricity generation, imported electricity, agriculture & forestry, residential, and commercial uses constitute the remaining major sources of GHG emissions. In comparison to the year 2017 emissions inventory, overall GHG emissions in California increased by 0.8 MMTCO2e. The State of California GHG emissions inventory for year 201 8, by sector, is depicted in Figure GHG-1 (ARB 2021).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 28 Figure GHG-1. State of California Greenhouse Gases Emissions Inventory by Sector This figure breaks out 2018 emissions by sector into an additional level of sub-sector categories. * The transportation sector represents tailpipe emissions from on-road vehicles and direct emissions from other off-road mobile sources. It does not include emissions from petroleum refineries and oil extraction and production, which are included in the industrial sector.

Source: ARB 2021
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), such as black carbon, fluorinated gases, and CH4 also have a dramatic effect on climate change. Though short-lived, these pollutants create a warming influence on the climate that is many times more potent than that of CO2.

As part of the ARB’s efforts to address SLCPs, the ARB has developed a statewide emission inventory for black carbon. The black carbon inventory will help support the implementation of the SLCP Strategy, but it is not part of the State’s GHG Inventory that tracks progress towards the State’s climate targets. The most recent inventory is for year 2013 conditions and depicted in Figure GHG-2. As depicted, off -road mobile sources account for a majority of black carbon emissions totaling roughly 36 percent of the inventory. Other major anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on -road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion, and industrial processes (ARB 2015).

EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
There are uncertainties as to exactly what the climate changes will be in v arious local areas of the earth .

There are also uncertainties associated with the magnitude and timing of other consequences of a warmer planet: sea level rise, spread of certain diseases out of their usual geographic range, the effect on agricultural production, water supply, sustainability of ecosystems, increased strength and frequency of storms, extreme heat events, increased air pollution episodes, and the consequence of these effects on the economy.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 29 Figure GHG-2. California Black Carbon Emissions Inventory (Year 2013) Source: ARB 2015
Within California, climate changes would likely alter the ecological characteristics of many ecosystems throughout the state. Such alterations would likely include increases in surface temperatures and changes in the form, timing, and intensity of precipitation. For instance, historical records are depicting an increasing trend toward earlier snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada. This snowpack is a principal supply of water for the state, providing roughly 50 percent of the state’s annual runoff. If this trend continues, some areas of the state may experience an increased danger of floods during the winter months and possible exhaustion of the snowpack during the spring and summer months. Earlier snowmelt would also impact the State’s energy resources. In 2019, approximately 19 percent of California's electricity came from hydropower (CEC 2020) . Early exhaustion of the Sierra snowpack may force electricity producers to switch to more costly or non-renewable forms of electricity generation during the spring and summer months. A changing climate may also impact agricultural crop yields, coastal structures, and biodiversity. As a result, changes in climate will likely have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry (ARB 2017a).

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Executive Order 13514
Executive Order (EO) 13514 is focused on reducing GHGs internally in federal agency missions, programs , and operations . In addition, the EO directs federal agencies to participate in the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, which is engaged in developing a national strategy for adaptation to climate change.

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the FCAA and that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate GHG. The Court held that the U.S. EPA Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) in the atmosphere threaten public health and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well - mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to t he GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 30 Although these findings did not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities, this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Stan dards for Light -Duty Vehicles, which was published on September 15, 2009. On May 7, 2010 , the final Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) was published in the Federal Register.

U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on -road vehicles and engines. These next steps include developing the first-ever GHG regulations for heavy -duty engines and vehicles , as well as additional light-duty vehicle GHG regulations .

These steps were outlined by President Obama in a Presidential Memorandum on May 21, 2010.

The final combined U.S. EPA and NHTSA standards that make up the first phase of this national program apply to passenger cars, light -duty trucks, and medium -duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile (the equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this CO2 level solely through fuel economy improvements). Together, these standards will cut GHG emissions by an estimated 960 MMTCO2e and 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2012 -2016). On August 28, 2012, U.S. EPA and NHTSA issued their joint rule to extend this national program of coordinated GHG and fuel economy standards to model years 2017 through 2025 passenger vehicles.

STATE
Assembly Bill 1493
AB 1493 (Pavley) of 2002 (Health and Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) requires the ARB to develop and adopt the nation’s first GHG emission standards for automobiles. These standards are also known as Pavley I. The California Legislature declared in AB 1493 that global warming is a matter of increasing concern for public health and the environment. It cites several risks that California faces from climate change, including a reduction in the state’s water supply; an increase in air pollution caused by higher temperatures; harm to agriculture; an increase in wildfires; damage to the coastline; and economic losses caused by higher food, water, e nergy, and insurance prices. The bill also states that technological solutions to reduce GHG emissions would stimulate California’s economy and provide jobs. In 2004, the State of California submitted a request for a waiver from federal clean air regulations, as the State is authorized to do under the FCAA, to allow the State to require reduced tailpipe emissions of CO 2. In late 2007, the U.S. EPA denied California’s waiver request and declined to promulgate adequate federal regulations limiting GHG emissio ns. In early 2008, the State brought suit against the U.S. EPA related to this denial.

In January 2009, President Obama instructed the U.S. EPA to reconsider the Bush Administration’s denial of California’s and 13 other states’ requests to implement global warming pollution standards for cars and trucks. In June 2009, the U.S. EPA granted California’s waiver request, enabling the State to enforce its GHG emissions standards for new motor vehicles beginning with the current model year.

In 2009, President Obama announced a national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing GHG pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the US. The new standards would cover model years 2012 to 2016 and would raise passenger vehicle fuel economy to a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

Executive Order No. S-3-05
EO S-3-05 (State of California) proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra’s snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, to the 1990 level by 2020, and 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 31 The EO directed the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to co ordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature describing (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets, (2) impacts of global warming on California’s resources, and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the EO, the secretary of CalEPA created a Climate Action Team made up of members from various state agencies and commissions. The Climate Action Team released its first report in March 2006 and continues to release periodic reports on progress. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government , and community actions, as well as through state incentive and regulatory programs.

Assembly Bill 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 AB 32 (Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592 –38599) requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The gases that are regulated by AB 32 include CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, NF3, and SF6. The reduction to 1990 levels will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in resp onse to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles.

However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then ARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires that ARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap, institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcem ent mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumer s are not unfairly affected by the reductions (ARB 2016).

Climate Change Scoping Plan
In October 2008, ARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan , which is the State’s plan to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32. This initia l Scoping Plan contained the main strategies to be implemented in order to achieve the target emission levels identified in AB 32. The Scoping Plan included ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory.

The largest proposed GHG reduction recommendations were associated with improving emissions standards for light -duty vehicles, implementing the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, implementation of energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances, and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems, and developing a renewable portfolio standard for electricity production.

The Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth decisions will play important roles in the state’s GHG reductions because local governments have primary authority to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions. ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emissions sectors. With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects approximately

5.0 MMTCO2e will be achieved associated with the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below.

The initial Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and is updated every 5 years. The first update of the Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on May 22, 2014, which looked past 2020 to set mid-term goals (2030-2035) on the road to reaching the 2050 goals., The most recent update released by ARB is the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan , which was released In November 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan incorporates strategies for achieving the 2030 GHG-reduction target established in SB 32 and EO B-30-15 (ARB 2014).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 32 Senate Bill 1078 and Governor’s Order S-14-08 (California Renewables Portfolio Standards) SB 1078 (Public Utilities Code Sections 387, 390.1, 399.25 , and Article 16) addresses electricity supply and requires that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, provide a minimum of 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This SB will affect statewide GHG emissions associated with electricity generation. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed EO S-14-08, which set the Renewables Portfolio Standard target to 33 percent by 2020. I t directed state government agencies and retail sellers of electricity to take all appropriate actions to implement this target. EO S-14-08 was later superseded by EO S-21-09 on September 15, 2009. EO S-21-09 directed the ARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the State to come from renewable energy by 2020. Statute SB X1-2 superseded this EO in 2011, which obligated all California electricity providers, including investor -owned utilities and publicly owned utilities, to obtain at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable electrical generation facilities by 2020.

ARB is required by current law, AB 32 of 2006, to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80 percen t reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. The California Energy Commissions and California Public Utilities Commission serve in advisory roles to help ARB develop the regulations to administer the 33 percent by 2020 requirement. ARB is also authorized to increase the target and accelerate and expand the time frame.

Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions
The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32, 2006) requires the reporting of GHGs by major sources to the ARB. Major sources required to report GHG emissio ns include industrial facilities, suppliers of transportation fuels, natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied petroleum gas, and carbon dioxide, operators of petroleum and natural gas systems, and electricity retail providers and marketers.

Cap-and-Trade Regulation
The cap-and-trade regulation is a key element in California’s climate plan. It sets a statewide limit on sources responsible for 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions and establishes a price signal needed to drive long- term investment in cleaner fuels and more efficient use of energy. The cap-and-trade rules came into effect on January 1, 2013 , and apply to large electric power plants and large industrial plants. In 2015, fuel distributors, including distributors of heating and transportation fuels, also became subject to the cap-and- trade rules. At that stage, the program will encompass around 360 businesses throughout California and nearly 85 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions.

Under the cap-and-trade regulation, companies must hold enough emission allowances to cover their emissions and are free to buy and sell allowances on the open market. California held its first auction of GHG allowances on November 14, 2012. California’s GHG cap-and-trade system is projected to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and would achieve an approximate 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Bill 32
SB 32 was signed by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016. SB 32 effectively extends Califor nia’s GHG emission-reduction goals from year 2020 to year 2030. This new emission-reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is intended to promote further GHG reductions in support of the State’s ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 also directs the ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to address this interim 2030 emission-reduction target.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will address land-use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan. ARB, in consultation with MPOs, establishes regional reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every 8 years but can be updated every 4 years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 33 with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, funding for transportation projects may be withheld.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC is adopted every 3 years by the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In the interim, the BSC also adopts annual updates to make necessary mid - term corrections. The CBC standards apply statewide; however, a local jurisdiction may amend a CBC standard if it makes a finding that the amendment is reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions (BSC 2016).

Green Building Standards
In essence, green buildings standards are indistinguishable from any other building standards. Both standards are contained in the CBC and regulate the construction of new buildings and improvements. The only practical distinction between the two is that whereas the focus of traditional building standards has been protecting public health and safety, the focus of gre en building standards is to improve environmental performance.

AB 32, which mandates the reduction of GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, increased the urgency around the adoption of green building standards. In its scoping plan for the i mplementation of AB 32, ARB identified energy use as the second largest contributor to California’s GHG emissions, constituting roughly 25 percent of all such emissions. In recommending a green building strategy as one element of the scoping plan, ARB estimated that green building standards would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 26 MMTCO2e by 2020. The green buildings standards were most recently updated in 2016.

Senate Bill 97
SB 97 was enacted in 2007. SB 97 required the Office of Planning and Rese arch (OPR) to develop, and the Natural Resources Agency to adopt, amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions. Those CEQA Guidelines amendments clarified several points, including the following:
• Lead agencies must analyze the GHG emissions of proposed projects and must reach a conclusion regarding the significance of those emissions.
• When a project’s GHG emissions may be significant, lead agencies must consider a range of potential mitigation measures to reduce those emissions. • Lead agencies must analyze potentially significant impacts associated with placing projects in hazardous locations, including locations potentially affected by climate change. • Lead agencies may significantly streamline the analysis of GHGs on a project level by using a programmatic GHG emissions reduction plan meeting certain criteria. • CEQA mandates analysis of a proposed project’s potential energy use (including transportation- related energy), sources of energy supply and ways to reduce energy demand, including through the use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
In March 2017, the ARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy establishing a path to decrease GHG emissions and displace fossil -based natural gas use. Strategies include avoiding landfill CH4 emissions by reducing the disposal of organics through edible food recovery, composting, in-vessel digestion, and other processes; and recovering CH4 from wastewater treatment facilities, and manure CH4 at dairies, and using the CH4 as a renewable source of natura l gas to fuel vehicles or generate electricity. The SLCP Strategy also identifies steps to reduce natural gas leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, valves, and pumps to improve safety, avoid energy losses, and reduce methane emissions associated with na tural gas use.

Lastly, the SLCP Strategy also identifies measures that can reduce HFC emissions at national and international levels, in addition to State-level action that includes an incentive program to encourage the use of low-GWP refrigerants, and limitations on the use of high -GWP refrigerants in new refrigeration and air -conditioning equipment (ARB 2017a).

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 34 EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule
On September 27, 2019, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA published The SAFE Vehicles Part One Rule that revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California.

In April 2020, the U.S. EPA and the NHTSA issued the SAFE Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (Final SAFE Rule) that relaxed federal GHG emissions and CAFE standards.

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
SJVAPCD Climate Change Action Plan
On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD Governing Board approved the SJVAPCD’s Climate Change Action Plan with the following goals and actions:

Goals:
• Assist local land-use agencies with CEQA issues relative to projects with GHG emissions increases. • Assist Valley businesses in complying with mandates of AB 32. • Ensure that climate protection measures do not cause an increase in toxic or criteria pollutants that adversely impact public health or environmental justice communities.

Actions:
• Authorize the Air Pollution Control Officer to develop GHG significance threshold(s) or other mechanisms to address CEQA projects with GHG emissions increases. Begin the requisite public process, including public workshops, and develop recommendations for Governing Board consideration in the spring of 2009.
• Authorize the Air Pollution Control Officer to develop necessary regulations and instruments for establishment and administration of the San Joaquin Valley Carbon Exchange Bank for voluntary GHG reductions created in the Valley. Begin the requisite public process, including public workshops, and develop recommendations for Governing Board consideration in spring 2009. • Authorize the Air Pollution Control Officer to enhance the SJVAPCD’s existing criteria pollutant emissions inventory reporting system to allow businesses subject to AB 32 emission reporting requirements to submit simultaneous streamlined reports to the SJVAPCD and the state of California with minimal duplication.
• Authorize the Air Pollution Control Officer to develop and administer voluntary GHG emission reduction agreements to mitigate proposed GHG increases from new projects. • Direct the Air Pollution Control Officer to support climate protection measures that reduce GHG emissions as well as toxic and criteria pollutants. Oppose measures that result in a significant increase in toxic or criteria pollutant emissions in already impacted areas.

SJVAPCD CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance.

On December 17, 2009, the SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted “Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA” and the policy, “District Policy— Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency.” The SJVAPCD concluded that the exist ing science is inadequate to support the quantification of the impacts that project -specific GHG emissions have on global climatic change. The SJVAPCD found the effects of project -specific emissions to be cumulative, and without mitigation, that their incremental contribution to global climatic change could be considered cumulatively considerable. The SJVAPCD found that this cumulative impact is best addressed by requiring all projects to reduce their GHG emissions, whether through project design elements or mitigation.

The SJVAPCD’s approach is intended to streamline the process of determining if project-specific GHG emissions would have a significant effect. Projects exempt from the requirements of CEQA, and projects complying with an approved plan or mitigation program would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources and have a certified final CEQA document.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 35 Best performance standards (BPS) would be established according to performance -based determinations.

Projects complying with BPS would not require specific quantification of GHG emissions and would be determined to have a less than significant cumulative impact for GHG emissions. Projects not complying with BPS would require quantification of GHG emissions and demonstration that GHG emissions have been reduced or mitigated by 29 percent, as targeted by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan. Furthermore, quantification of GHG emissions would be required for all projects for which the lead agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is required, regardless of whether the project incorporates BPS.

For stationary source permitting projects, BPS are “the most stringent of the identified alternatives for control of GHG emissions, including the type of equipment, design of equipment and operational and maintenance practices, which are achieved -in-practice for the identified service, operation, or emissions uni t class.” For development projects, BPS are “any combination of identified GHG emission reduction measures, including project design elements and land use decisions that reduce project-specific GHG emission reductions by at least 29 percent compared with b usiness as usual (BAU).” The SJVAPCD proposes to create a list of all approved BPS to help in the determination as to whether a proposed project has reduced its GHG emissions by 29 percent.

IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY
Short-term Impacts
Short-term emissions were quantified using the CalEEMod computer program based on estimated acreages and building square footage for the proposed project. Other modeling assumptions, including construction equipment requirements, hours of use, work er, and vendor vehicle trips, trip distances, and fleet mix were based on model defaults for the County of Fresno. The SJVAPCD has not provided guidance on what the amortization period for individual projects should be. However, other air districts in California have identified recommended amortization periods for construction activities. For instance, t he South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommends a period of 30 years (SCAQMD 2008). In contrast, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) recommends a 50-year period for residential projects and a 25 -year period for non -residential or commercial projects (SLOAPCD 2012). To be conservative, the SLOAPCD 25-year amortization period is utilized in this analysis.

Long-term Impacts
Long-term operational GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Emissions modeling included quantification of emissions associated with area sources, energy use, and mobile sources.

Trip-generation rates for the proposed land use were derived from the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed project (PEG 2021). Mobile -source emissions were conservatively based on the default fleet distribution assumptions contained in the model and include mobile-source emission adjustments to account for the Final SAFE Vehicles Rule. Emission modeling files are provided in Appendix A.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Initial Study Checklist , a project would be considered to have a significant impact to climate change if it would:
a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or,
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy o r regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
In accordance with the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land -use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA (SJVAPCD 2009), a project would be considered to have a less than significant impact on climate change if it would comply with at least one of the following criteria:

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 36 • Comply with an approved GHG emission reduction plan or GHG mitigation pro gram which avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions within the geographic area in which the project is located.

Such plans or programs must be specified in law or approved by the lead agency with jurisdiction over the affected resource and supported b y a CEQA compliant environmental review document adopted by the lead agency, or
• Implement approved best performance standards, or
• Quantify project GHG emissions and reduce those emissions by at least 29 percent compared to BAU.

The SJVAPCD has not yet ad opted BPS for development projects. The quantification of project -generated GHG emissions in comparison to BAU conditions to determine consistency with AB 32’s reduction goals is considered appropriate in some instances. However, based on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Newhall Land and Farming (2015) 224 Cal.App.4th 1105 (CBD vs. CDFW; also known as the “Newhall Ranch case”), substantial evidence would need to be provided to document that project-level reductions in comparison to a BAU approach would be consistent with achieving AB 32’s overall statewide reduction goal. Given that AB 32’s statewide goal includes reductions that are not necessarily related to an individual development project, the use of this approach may be difficult to support given the lack of substantial evidence to adequately demonstrate a link between the data contained in the AB 32 Scoping Plan and individual development projects .

Alternatively, the Court identified potential options for evaluating GHG impacts for individual development projects, which included the use of GHG efficiency metrics. In general, GHG efficiency metrics can be used to assess the GHG efficiency of an individual project based on a per capita basis or on a service population basis.

The analysis was compared to a calculated GHG efficiency threshold based on the SB 32 GHG emission reduction goals, which take into consideration the emission reduction strategies outlined in ARB’s Scoping Plan. The efficiency threshold was calculated based on ARB’s GHG emissions inventory identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Emissions sectors that do not apply to the proposed project (i.e., agriculture, residential, comm ercial, and industrial ) were excluded from the calculation. The total GHG emissions target for the land use sectors applicable to the proposed project were then divided by the projected service population (SP) (i.e., the sum of the population and employment in California) for the future year 2030 conditions. The service population was calculated based on the most current population and employment projections derived from the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit and 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, respectively (DOF 202 1, ARB 2017 b). As shown in Table GHG -2, project-generated GHG emissions that would exceed the calculated efficiency threshold of 2.3 MTCO2e/SP/year would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on the environment that could conflict with GHG -reduction planning efforts. To be conservative, amortized construction -generated GHG emissions were included in the annual operational GHG emissions estimates.

Table GHG-2. Project-Level GHG Efficiency Threshold Calculation Year 2030
Land Use Sectors GHG Emissions Target (CO2e) 1 149,000,000 Population 41,860,549
Employment 23,459,500
Service Population (SP) 65,320,049
GHG Efficiency Threshold (MTCO2e/SP/yr) 2.3
GHG = Greenhouse gas; CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent; SP = Service population; MTCO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; yr = Year

1. Based on ARB 2017 Climate Scoping Plan Update/SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector targets. Does not include the agricultur e, residential, commercial, and industrial sector. As well as the cap-and-trade program.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 37 PROJECT IMPACTS
Impact GHG-A. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 from mobile sources. To a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as CH 4 and N2O, would also be generated. Short -term and long -term GHG emissions associated with the development of the proposed project are discussed in greater detail, as follows:

Short-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table GHG-3. Based on the modeling conducted, construction-related GHG emissions would total approximately 695.4 MTCO2e. Amortized GHG emissions, when averaged over the conservative assumption of a 25-year project life would total approximately 27.8 MTCO2e/year. Actual emissions may vary, depending on the final construction schedules, equipment required, and activ ities conducted. Amortized construction-generated GHG emissions are included in the operational GHG emissions impact discussion provided below.

Table GHG-3. Construction-Generated GHG Emissions without Mitigation Construction Year GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
2021 184.9
2022 369.8
2023 140.6
Construction Total: 695.4
Amortized Construction Emissions: 27.8
MTCO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Amortized emissions are quantified based on 25-year project life.

Long-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimated long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table GHG -4. As depicted, operational GHG emissio ns for the proposed project, with the inclusion of amortized construction GHGs, would total approximately 2,765.3 MTCO2e/year. A majority of the operational GHG emissions would be associated with energy use and the operation of motor vehicles. To a lesser extent, GHG emissions would be associated with live fire training, solid waste generation , and water use. Project - generated GHG emissions are projected to decrease in future years due largely to improvements in energy efficiency and vehicle fleet emissions . Based on the modeling conducted an estimated 320 SP (i.e., 270 students and 50 employees) was used to calculate the GHG efficiency . The calculated GHG efficiency for the proposed project, without mitigation, would be approximately 8.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr. The GHG efficiency for the proposed project would exceed the threshold of 2.3 MTCO2e/SP/yr. For these reasons, this impact would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce GHG emissions associated with project operation:

1. Transit Infrastructure-Based Mitigation Measures
a. Provide transit enhancing infrastructure that includes: transit shelters, benches, etc.; street lighting; route signs and displays; and/or bus turnouts/bulbs b. Provide a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) System

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 38 Table GHG-4. Operational GHG Emissions without Mitigation Emission Source Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Area 0.0
Energy 208.3
Mobile 2,410.1
Waste 40.5
Water 10.4
Live Fire Training 68.2
Total Operational Emissions: 2,737.5
Amortized Construction Emissions: 27.8
Total with Amortized Construction Emissions: 2,765.3
Service Population (SP): 320
MTCO2e/SP: 8.6
GHG Efficiency Significance Threshold: 2.3
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
GHG = Greenhouse gas; SP = Service population; MTCO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Includes mobile-source emission adjustments to account for the Final SAFE Vehicles Rule.

2. VMT Infrastructure-Based Mitigation Measures
a. Provide park and ride lots and/or satellite telecommuting centers b. Market Commute Trip Reduction Options

3. Pedestrian Infrastructure-Based Mitigation Measures
c. Provide pedestrian Enhancing infrastructure that includes: sidewalks and pedestrian paths; direct pedestrian connections; street trees to shade sidewalks; pedestrian safety designs/infrastructure; street furniture a nd artwork; street lighting; and/or pedestrian signalization and signage

4. Bicycle Infrastructure-Based Mitigation Measures
d. Provide bicycle enhancing infrastructure that includes: bikeways/ paths connecting to a bikeway system; secure bicycle parking; and/or employee lockers and showers

5. Rideshare Operational Mitigation Measures
e. Implement carpool/ vanpool program e.g., carpool ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.

6. Services Operational Mitigation Measures
f. Provide on -site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc.
g. Provide on-site child care, or contribute to offsite child care within walking distance

7. Shuttle Operational Mitigation Measures
h. Establish mid-day shuttle service from worksite to food service establishments/ commercial areas
i. Provide shuttle service to transit stations/multimodal centers

8. Parking Operational Mitigation Measures
j. Provide preferential parking (e.g., near building entrance, sheltered area, etc.) for carpool and vanpool vehicles
k. Implement parking fees for single occupancy vehicle commuters l. Implement parking cashout program for employees (i.e., nondriving employees receive transportation allowance equivalent to value of subsidized parking)

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 39 9. Transit Operational Mitigation Measures
m. Provide transit incentives
Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce operational GHG emissions and be consistent with applicable air quality plans. However, as shown in Table GHG -5, with mitigation, emissions would continue to exceed the GHG efficiency threshold of 2.3 MTCO2e/SP/yr. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Table GHG-5. Operational GHG Emissions with Mitigation
Emission Source Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Area 0.0
Energy 156.4
Mobile 2,302.0
Waste 40.5
Water 9.0
Live Fire Training 68.2
Total Operational Emissions: 2,576.1
Amortized Construction Emissions: 27.8
Total with Amortized Construction Emissions: 2,603.9
Service Population (SP): 320
MTCO2e/SP: 8.1
GHG Efficiency Significance Threshold: 2.3
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
GHG = Greenhouse gas; SP = Service population; MTCO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Includes mobile-source emission adjustments to account for the Final SAFE Vehicles Rule.

Impact GHG-B. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As noted in Impact GHG-A, the proposed project would result in increased GHG emissions that would conflict with the State’s GHG-reduction target goals. The proposed project wou ld be designed to meet current building energy-efficiency standards, which include measures to reduce overall energy use, water use, and waste generation. However, even with the mitigation measures imposed, predicted increases in operational GHG emissions, primarily from mobile sources, would still exceed the threshold of significance. As a result, the proposed project could conflict with local , regional, or state GHG -reduction planning efforts. This impact would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

Significance after Mitigation: With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 this impact would still be considered significant and unavoidable.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 40 REFERENCES
Air Quality
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 1992. Aerometric Data Division. California Surface Wind Climatology.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. Website URL:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpapp.htm
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. California Almanac of Emissions & Air Quality.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Website URL:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020b. Air Quality Data. Website URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020c. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2000. Division of Mines and Geology. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California-Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Open File Report 2000-19.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1996. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol.

University of California Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, UCD-ITS-RR-96-1.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2020. Valley Fever Awareness. Website URL:
https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/features/valley-
fever.html#:~:text=Awareness%20is%20key,delays%20in%20diagnosis%20and%20treatment Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2020. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. Website URL: http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014. Technology Transfer Network – Pollutants and Sources. Website URL: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. FRESNO YOSEMITE INTL AP, CALIFORNIA (043257). Website URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257

Air Quality & Greenhouse Impact Analysis AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Fresno City College First Responders Center Project June 2021 41 Greenhouse Gas
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit — by Sector and Activity (Land Use-driven sectors only) MMT CO2e - (based upon IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming Potentials). Website URL: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/staff_report_1990_level.pdf California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Inventory. Website URL:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/slcp/slcp.htm
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Assembly Bill 32 Overview. Website URL:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017a. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017b. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website URL:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018. Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Website URL:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00-18.pdf California Building Standards Commission (BSC). 2016. CalGreen. Website URL:
http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. Demographic Research Unit. Report P-1A: Total Population Projections, California, 2010-2060 (Baseline 2019 Population Projections; Vintage 2019 Release). Website URL:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. California Hydroelectric Statistics and Data. Website URL:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/hydro/index_cms.php International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.

Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA.

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Website URL: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules‐regulations/land‐use‐ceqa.php South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold. Website URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐ source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse‐gases‐(ghg)‐ceqa‐significance‐ thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Overview of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Website URL:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Understanding Global Warming Potentials. Website URL: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

APPENDIX A

EMISSIONS MODELING
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Fresno City College First Responders Center
Fresno County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Junior College (2Yr) 62.00 1000sqft 40.00 62,000.00 320 Parking Lot 1.66 1000sqft 0.04 1,660.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
3 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)
Operational Year
45 2024
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
417.62 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.019 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Project Characteristics - Utility intensity factors reflect SB 100 (2018) Renewables Portfolio Standard program.

Land Use - 62,000 square feet of building area; 1,660 square feet of parking area; 40-acre site; 270 students; 50 employees Construction Phase - Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023.

Grading - 40-acre site graded
Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rates are based on ITE Land Use 540, Junior/Community College. The Project-specific traffic modeling performed by COG indicates a Project VMT of 28.7 miles per employee, which can also be reasonably estimated as the VMT per student.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment (0-22% GHG emission reduction) Mobile Commute Mitigation - Implement Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Programs (1.0-6.2% GHG emission reduction); Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (0.8-4.0% GHG emission reduction); Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle (0.3-13.4% GHG emission reduction); Provide Ride- Sharing Programs (1-15% GHG emission reduction)
Energy Mitigation - Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.

Water Mitigation - Low-flow indoor water use; water-efficient irrigation systems outdoor water use Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 38.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/8/2025 7/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/4/2025 4/14/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/5/2022 11/12/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/22/2025 5/24/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/21/2021 9/21/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2025 5/25/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/6/2022 11/13/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/22/2021 9/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/5/2025 4/15/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/10/2021 9/1/2021 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 95.00 40.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 40.00
tblLandUse Population 0.00 320.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.019 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 417.62 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 14.35
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 11.23 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 27.49 20.25

2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1480 1.5129 1.0743 2.0900e-
003

0.2845 0.0700 0.3544 0.1432 0.0647 0.2079 0.0000 183.6427 183.6427 0.0522 0.0000 184.9472 2022 0.2434 2.1751 2.2636 4.2200e-
003

0.0514 0.1057 0.1572 0.0139 0.0995 0.1133 0.0000 367.9254 367.9254 0.0770 0.0000 369.8499 2023 0.5145 0.7345 0.8826 1.6000e-
003

0.0183 0.0345 0.0528 4.9200e-
003

0.0324 0.0373 0.0000 139.8436 139.8436 0.0310 0.0000 140.6186 Maximum 0.5145 2.1751 2.2636 4.2200e-
003

0.2845 0.1057 0.3544 0.1432 0.0995 0.2079 0.0000 367.9254 367.9254 0.0770 0.0000 369.8499 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0537 0.9841 1.2216 2.0900e-
003

0.1191 0.0477 0.1668 0.0580 0.0477 0.1058 0.0000 183.6425 183.6425 0.0522 0.0000 184.9470 2022 0.1092 1.9944 2.4600 4.2200e-
003

0.0514 0.1180 0.1695 0.0139 0.1180 0.1318 0.0000 367.9250 367.9250 0.0770 0.0000 369.8496 2023 0.4723 0.7447 0.9819 1.6000e-
003

0.0183 0.0439 0.0622 4.9200e-
003

0.0439 0.0488 0.0000 139.8435 139.8435 0.0310 0.0000 140.6185 Maximum 0.4723 1.9944 2.4600 4.2200e-
003

0.1191 0.1180 0.1695 0.0580 0.1180 0.1318 0.0000 367.9250 367.9250 0.0770 0.0000 369.8496 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

29.88 15.81 -10.50 0.00 46.70 0.27 29.41 52.59 -6.62 20.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4105 0.8446
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 0.6216 0.5215
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.6114 0.5318
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.6112 0.5316
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.6049 0.5262
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.5646 0.5155
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5163 0.5081
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.3813 0.3803
Highest 1.4105 0.8446
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
Energy 7.3800e-
003

0.0671 0.0564 4.0000e-
004

5.1000e-
003

0.0000 207.3196 207.3196 7.5100e-
003

2.6300e-
003
208.2897
Mobile 0.3229 3.6802 3.9552 0.0253 1.6833 0.0137 1.6970 0.4537 0.0129 0.4665 0.0000 2,358.061 4 2,358.061
4 0.1273 0.0000 2,361.243
6 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.3611 0.0000 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9648 6.2706 7.2354 0.0994 2.4000e- 003

10.4350
Total 0.6158 3.7474 4.0122 0.0257 1.6833 0.0188 1.7021 0.4537 0.0180 0.4716 17.3259 2,571.652 8 2,588.978
6 1.2011 5.0300e-
003
2,620.503
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

2.2 Overall Operational
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2854 1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
Energy 5.3000e-
003

0.0482 0.0405 2.9000e-
004

3.6600e-
003

0.0000 155.7202 155.7202 5.7000e-
003

1.9500e-
003
156.4442
Mobile 0.3145 3.5921 3.7869 0.0242 1.5988 0.0131 1.6118 0.4309 0.0123 0.4432 0.0000 2,252.192 1 2,252.192
1 0.1252 0.0000 2,255.322
0 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.3611 0.0000 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7718 5.6472 6.4191 0.0795 1.9300e- 003

8.9813
Total 0.6052 3.6403 3.8279 0.0245 1.5988 0.0167 1.6155 0.4309 0.0159 0.4468 17.1329 2,413.560 7 2,430.693
6 1.1773 3.8800e-
003
2,461.282
5 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

1.71 2.86 4.59 4.86 5.02 11.05 5.09 5.02 11.40 5.26 1.11 6.15 6.11 1.98 22.86 6.08

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/2021 9/21/2021 5 15 2 Grading Grading 9/22/2021 11/12/2021 5 38
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/13/2021 4/14/2023 5 370 4 Paving Paving 4/15/2023 5/24/2023 5 28
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/25/2023 7/3/2023 5 28 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.04
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 93,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 31,000; Striped Parking Area: 100 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 10.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1355 0.0000 0.1355 0.0745 0.0000 0.0745 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0292 0.3037 0.1587 2.9000e-
004

0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 25.0768 25.0768 8.1100e- 003

0.0000 25.2796
Total 0.0292 0.3037 0.1587 2.9000e-
004

0.1355 0.0153 0.1508 0.0745 0.0141 0.0886 0.0000 25.0768 25.0768 8.1100e- 003

0.0000 25.2796
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 4.9000e- 4.9200e- 2.0000e- 1.6800e- 1.0000e- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.0000e- 4.6000e- 0.0000 1.3884 1.3884 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.3892 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 7.5000e- 4.9000e- 4.9200e- 2.0000e- 1.6800e- 1.0000e- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.0000e- 4.6000e- 0.0000 1.3884 1.3884 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.3892 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0528 0.0000 0.0528 0.0291 0.0000 0.0291 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.9800e-
003

0.1430 0.1722 2.9000e-
004

7.1000e-
003

0.0000 25.0768 25.0768 8.1100e-
003

0.0000 25.2795
Total 6.9800e-
003

0.1430 0.1722 2.9000e-
004

0.0528 7.1000e-
003

0.0599 0.0291 7.1000e-
003

0.0362 0.0000 25.0768 25.0768 8.1100e-
003

0.0000 25.2795
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.5000e- 4.9000e- 4.9200e- 2.0000e- 1.6800e- 1.0000e- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.0000e- 4.6000e- 0.0000 1.3884 1.3884 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.3892 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 7.5000e- 4.9000e- 4.9200e- 2.0000e- 1.6800e- 1.0000e- 1.6900e- 4.5000e- 1.0000e- 4.6000e- 0.0000 1.3884 1.3884 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.3892 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

3.3 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1356 0.0000 0.1356 0.0652 0.0000 0.0652 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1356 0.0377 0.1734 0.0652 0.0347 0.0999 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.3 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1100e- 1.3700e- 0.0138 4.0000e- 4.7200e- 3.0000e- 4.7500e- 1.2600e- 3.0000e- 1.2800e- 0.0000 3.9080 3.9080 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.9103 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005
Total 2.1100e- 1.3700e- 0.0138 4.0000e- 4.7200e- 3.0000e- 4.7500e- 1.2600e- 3.0000e- 1.2800e- 0.0000 3.9080 3.9080 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.9103 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0529 0.0000 0.0529 0.0254 0.0000 0.0254 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0289 0.5696 0.6977 1.1800e-
003

0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0289 0.5696 0.6977 1.1800e-
003

0.0529 0.0247 0.0776 0.0254 0.0247 0.0501 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.3 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.1100e- 1.3700e- 0.0138 4.0000e- 4.7200e- 3.0000e- 4.7500e- 1.2600e- 3.0000e- 1.2800e- 0.0000 3.9080 3.9080 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.9103 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005
Total 2.1100e- 1.3700e- 0.0138 4.0000e- 4.7200e- 3.0000e- 4.7500e- 1.2600e- 3.0000e- 1.2800e- 0.0000 3.9080 3.9080 9.0000e- 0.0000 3.9103 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 005

0.0168 0.0168 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 40.5365 40.5365 9.7800e- 003

0.0000 40.7810
Total 0.0333 0.3051 0.2901 4.7000e-
004

0.0168 0.0168 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 40.5365 40.5365 9.7800e- 003

0.0000 40.7810
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 0.0190 2.8600e- 5.0000e- 1.0500e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 3.0000e- 5.0000e- 3.5000e- 0.0000 4.3333 4.3333 5.6000e- 0.0000 4.3473 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004
Worker 2.6200e- 1.7000e- 0.0172 5.0000e- 5.8700e- 3.0000e- 5.9100e- 1.5600e- 3.0000e- 1.5900e- 0.0000 4.8593 4.8593 1.2000e- 0.0000 4.8622 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004
Total 3.1200e- 0.0207 0.0201 1.0000e- 6.9200e- 8.0000e- 7.0100e- 1.8600e- 8.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 9.1926 9.1926 6.8000e- 0.0000 9.2095 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0118 0.2490 0.3128 4.7000e-
004

0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 40.5365 40.5365 9.7800e- 003

0.0000 40.7810
Total 0.0118 0.2490 0.3128 4.7000e-
004

0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0158 0.0000 40.5365 40.5365 9.7800e- 003

0.0000 40.7810
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 0.0190 2.8600e- 5.0000e- 1.0500e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 3.0000e- 5.0000e- 3.5000e- 0.0000 4.3333 4.3333 5.6000e- 0.0000 4.3473 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004
Worker 2.6200e- 1.7000e- 0.0172 5.0000e- 5.8700e- 3.0000e- 5.9100e- 1.5600e- 3.0000e- 1.5900e- 0.0000 4.8593 4.8593 1.2000e- 0.0000 4.8622 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004
Total 3.1200e- 0.0207 0.0201 1.0000e- 6.9200e- 8.0000e- 7.0100e- 1.8600e- 8.0000e- 1.9400e- 0.0000 9.1926 9.1926 6.8000e- 0.0000 9.2095 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

0.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2428 301.2428 0.0722 0.0000 303.0471 Total 0.2218 2.0300 2.1272 3.5000e-
003

0.1052 0.1052 0.0990 0.0990 0.0000 301.2428 301.2428 0.0722 0.0000 303.0471 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.4500e- 0.1337 0.0197 3.4000e- 7.7900e- 3.1000e- 8.1000e- 2.2500e- 3.0000e- 2.5500e- 0.0000 31.8829 31.8829 4.0500e- 0.0000 31.9841 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003
Worker 0.0181 0.0113 0.1167 3.8000e-
004

0.0436 2.5000e-
004

0.0439 0.0116 2.3000e-
004

0.0118 0.0000 34.7997 34.7997 7.6000e-
004

0.0000 34.8188
Total 0.0216 0.1450 0.1364 7.2000e-
004

0.0514 5.6000e-
004

0.0520 0.0138 5.3000e-
004

0.0144 0.0000 66.6826 66.6826 4.8100e-
003

0.0000 66.8029
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0876 1.8494 2.3236 3.5000e-
003

0.1175 0.1175 0.1175 0.1175 0.0000 301.2425 301.2425 0.0722 0.0000 303.0467 Total 0.0876 1.8494 2.3236 3.5000e-
003

0.1175 0.1175 0.1175 0.1175 0.0000 301.2425 301.2425 0.0722 0.0000 303.0467 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.4500e- 0.1337 0.0197 3.4000e- 7.7900e- 3.1000e- 8.1000e- 2.2500e- 3.0000e- 2.5500e- 0.0000 31.8829 31.8829 4.0500e- 0.0000 31.9841 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003
Worker 0.0181 0.0113 0.1167 3.8000e-
004

0.0436 2.5000e-
004

0.0439 0.0116 2.3000e-
004

0.0118 0.0000 34.7997 34.7997 7.6000e-
004

0.0000 34.8188
Total 0.0216 0.1450 0.1364 7.2000e-
004

0.0514 5.6000e-
004

0.0520 0.0138 5.3000e-
004

0.0144 0.0000 66.6826 66.6826 4.8100e-
003

0.0000 66.8029

0.0262 0.0262 0.0247 0.0247 0.0000 86.9268 86.9268 0.0207 0.0000 87.4437 Total 0.0590 0.5394 0.6092 1.0100e-
003

0.0262 0.0262 0.0247 0.0247 0.0000 86.9268 86.9268 0.0207 0.0000 87.4437 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.8000e- 0.0304 4.5900e- 9.0000e- 2.2500e- 3.0000e- 2.2800e- 6.5000e- 3.0000e- 6.8000e- 0.0000 8.9712 8.9712 7.9000e- 0.0000 8.9910 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004
Worker 4.8700e-
003

2.9200e-
003

0.0308 1.1000e-
004

0.0126 7.0000e-
005

0.0127 3.3400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

3.4100e-
003

0.0000 9.6616 9.6616 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 9.6665
Total 5.5500e-
003

0.0333 0.0354 2.0000e-
004

0.0148 1.0000e-
004

0.0149 3.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
004

4.0900e-
003

0.0000 18.6328 18.6328 9.9000e-
004

0.0000 18.6575
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0253 0.5335 0.6703 1.0100e-
003

0.0339 0.0339 0.0339 0.0339 0.0000 86.9267 86.9267 0.0207 0.0000 87.4436 Total 0.0253 0.5335 0.6703 1.0100e-
003

0.0339 0.0339 0.0339 0.0339 0.0000 86.9267 86.9267 0.0207 0.0000 87.4436 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 6.8000e- 0.0304 4.5900e- 9.0000e- 2.2500e- 3.0000e- 2.2800e- 6.5000e- 3.0000e- 6.8000e- 0.0000 8.9712 8.9712 7.9000e- 0.0000 8.9910 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004
Worker 4.8700e-
003

2.9200e-
003

0.0308 1.1000e-
004

0.0126 7.0000e-
005

0.0127 3.3400e-
003

7.0000e-
005

3.4100e-
003

0.0000 9.6616 9.6616 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 9.6665
Total 5.5500e-
003

0.0333 0.0354 2.0000e-
004

0.0148 1.0000e-
004

0.0149 3.9900e-
003

1.0000e-
004

4.0900e-
003

0.0000 18.6328 18.6328 9.9000e-
004

0.0000 18.6575

3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0145 0.1427 0.2042 3.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

6.5700e-
003

0.0000 28.0376 28.0376 9.0700e-
003

0.0000 28.2643
Paving 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0145 0.1427 0.2042 3.2000e-
004

7.1400e-
003

6.5700e-
003

0.0000 28.0376 28.0376 9.0700e-
003

0.0000 28.2643
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0100e- 6.1000e- 6.3800e- 2.0000e- 2.6100e- 1.0000e- 2.6300e- 6.9000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.0039 2.0039 4.0000e- 0.0000 2.0049 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 1.0100e- 6.1000e- 6.3800e- 2.0000e- 2.6100e- 1.0000e- 2.6300e- 6.9000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.0039 2.0039 4.0000e- 0.0000 2.0049 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.8500e-
003

0.1581 0.2421 3.2000e-
004

8.5300e-
003

0.0000 28.0376 28.0376 9.0700e-
003

0.0000 28.2643
Paving 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.9000e-
003

0.1581 0.2421 3.2000e-
004

8.5300e-
003

0.0000 28.0376 28.0376 9.0700e-
003

0.0000 28.2643
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.5 Paving - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0100e- 6.1000e- 6.3800e- 2.0000e- 2.6100e- 1.0000e- 2.6300e- 6.9000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.0039 2.0039 4.0000e- 0.0000 2.0049 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 1.0100e- 6.1000e- 6.3800e- 2.0000e- 2.6100e- 1.0000e- 2.6300e- 6.9000e- 1.0000e- 7.1000e- 0.0000 2.0039 2.0039 4.0000e- 0.0000 2.0049 003 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4314 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6800e-
003

0.0182 0.0254 4.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 3.5746 3.5746 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.5799
Total 0.4341 0.0182 0.0254 4.0000e-
005

9.9000e-
004

0.0000 3.5746 3.5746 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.5799
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 1.0000e- 8.7000e- 0.0000 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6680 0.6680 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6683 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
Total 3.4000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 1.0000e- 8.7000e- 0.0000 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6680 0.6680 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6683 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4314 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.3000e-
004

0.0190 0.0257 4.0000e-
005

1.3300e-
003

0.0000 3.5746 3.5746 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.5799
Total 0.4322 0.0190 0.0257 4.0000e-
005

1.3300e-
003

0.0000 3.5746 3.5746 2.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.5799
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 1.0000e- 8.7000e- 0.0000 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6680 0.6680 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6683 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005
Total 3.4000e- 2.0000e- 2.1300e- 1.0000e- 8.7000e- 0.0000 8.8000e- 2.3000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.6680 0.6680 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.6683 004 004 003 005 004 004 004 004 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Implement Trip Reduction Program
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Provide Riade Sharing Program
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3145 3.5921 3.7869 0.0242 1.5988 0.0131 1.6118 0.4309 0.0123 0.4432 0.0000 2,252.192 1 2,252.192
1 0.1252 0.0000 2,255.322
0 Unmitigated 0.3229 3.6802 3.9552 0.0253 1.6833 0.0137 1.6970 0.4537 0.0129 0.4665 0.0000 2,358.061 4 2,358.061
4 0.1273 0.0000 2,361.243
6 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Junior College (2Yr) 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Junior College (2Yr) 14.35 14.35 14.35 6.40 88.60 5.00 92 7 1 Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Junior College (2Yr) 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 Parking Lot 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
Install High Efficiency Lighting
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 103.2300 103.2300 4.7000e- 003

9.9000e-
004
103.6420
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 134.2335 134.2335 6.1100e- 003

1.2900e-
003
134.7694
NaturalGas 5.3000e- 0.0482 0.0405 2.9000e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 0.0000 52.4902 52.4902 1.0100e- 9.6000e- 52.8022 Mitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 004
NaturalGas 7.3800e- 0.0671 0.0564 4.0000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 0.0000 73.0860 73.0860 1.4000e- 1.3400e- 73.5203 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Junior College 1.36958e 7.3800e- 0.0671 0.0564 4.0000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 0.0000 73.0860 73.0860 1.4000e- 1.3400e- 73.5203 (2Yr) +006 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.3800e- 0.0671 0.0564 4.0000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 5.1000e- 0.0000 73.0860 73.0860 1.4000e- 1.3400e- 73.5203 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Junior College 983630 5.3000e- 0.0482 0.0405 2.9000e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 0.0000 52.4902 52.4902 1.0100e- 9.6000e- 52.8022 (2Yr) 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 004
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.3000e- 0.0482 0.0405 2.9000e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 3.6600e- 0.0000 52.4902 52.4902 1.0100e- 9.6000e- 52.8022 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 004
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)
708040 134.1235 6.1000e-
003

1.2800e-
003
134.6589
Parking Lot 581 0.1101 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1105
Total 134.2335 6.1100e-
003

1.2800e-
003
134.7694
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)
544546 103.1529 4.6900e-
003

9.9000e-
004
103.5647
Parking Lot 406.7 0.0770 0.0000 0.0000 0.0774
Total 103.2300 4.6900e-
003

9.9000e-
004
103.6420

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2854 1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
Unmitigated 0.2854 1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003

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

0.0431 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2423 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
Total 0.2854 1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

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

0.0431 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2423 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003
Total 0.2854 1.0000e-
005

5.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.2100e-
003

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 6.4191 0.0795 1.9300e-
003

8.9813
Unmitigated 7.2354 0.0994 2.4000e-
003

10.4350

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)

3.04104 /

4.7565

7.2354 0.0994 2.4000e-
003

10.4350
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.2354 0.0994 2.4000e-
003

10.4350
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

7.2 Water by Land Use
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)

2.43283 /

4.7565

6.4191 0.0795 1.9300e-
003

8.9813
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.4191 0.0795 1.9300e-
003

8.9813

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339
Unmitigated 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 35
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)

80.6 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Junior College
(2Yr)

80.6 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 16.3611 0.9669 0.0000 40.5339

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 35 of 35 Date: 4/12/2021 12:51 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Annual

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Fresno City College First Responders Center
Fresno County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Junior College (2Yr) 62.00 1000sqft 40.00 62,000.00 320 Parking Lot 1.66 1000sqft 0.04 1,660.00 0

0.019 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Project Characteristics - Utility intensity factors reflect SB 100 (2018) Renewables Portfolio Standard program.

Water Mitigation - Low-flow indoor water use; water-efficient irrigation systems outdoor water use Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 38.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/8/2025 7/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/4/2025 4/14/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/5/2022 11/12/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/22/2025 5/24/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/21/2021 9/21/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2025 5/25/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/6/2022 11/13/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/22/2021 9/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/5/2025 4/15/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/10/2021 9/1/2021 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 95.00 40.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 40.00
tblLandUse Population 0.00 320.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.019 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 417.62 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 14.35
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 11.23 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 27.49 20.25

2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.3130 46.4670 31.7407 0.0645 18.2962 2.0458 20.3420 9.9917 1.8821 11.8738 0.0000 6,255.855 6 6,255.855
6 1.9488 0.0000 6,304.576
3 2022 1.8850 16.7160 17.5666 0.0328 0.4062 0.8133 1.2195 0.1091 0.7652 0.8743 0.0000 3,152.397 5 3,152.397
5 0.6517 0.0000 3,168.689
0 2023 31.0325 15.2623 17.3327 0.0326 0.4062 0.7023 1.1085 0.1091 0.6609 0.7700 0.0000 3,134.356 7 3,134.356
7 0.7176 0.0000 3,150.263
5 Maximum 31.0325 46.4670 31.7407 0.0645 18.2962 2.0458 20.3420 9.9917 1.8821 11.8738 0.0000 6,255.855 6 6,255.855
6 1.9488 0.0000 6,304.576
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.6449 30.0454 37.5848 0.0645 7.2758 1.3009 8.2233 3.9339 1.3008 4.8813 0.0000 6,255.855 6 6,255.855
6 1.9488 0.0000 6,304.576
3 2022 0.8527 15.3264 19.0770 0.0328 0.4062 0.9078 1.3140 0.1091 0.9076 1.0167 0.0000 3,152.397 5 3,152.397
5 0.6517 0.0000 3,168.689
0 2023 30.9003 15.1035 18.9625 0.0326 0.4062 0.9062 1.3123 0.1091 0.9060 1.0151 0.0000 3,134.356 7 3,134.356
7 0.7176 0.0000 3,150.263
5 Maximum 30.9003 30.0454 37.5848 0.0645 7.2758 1.3009 8.2233 3.9339 1.3008 4.8813 0.0000 6,255.855 6 6,255.855
6 1.9488 0.0000 6,304.576
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

10.29 22.91 -13.48 0.00 57.67 12.54 52.14 59.33 5.86 48.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Energy 0.0405 0.3679 0.3090 2.2100e-
003

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
Mobile 2.8858 27.7933 34.2504 0.2045 13.2926 0.1055 13.3981 3.5742 0.0990 3.6732 20,971.98 09 20,971.98
09 1.0557 20,998.37
37 Total 4.4906 28.1612 34.5659 0.2067 13.2926 0.1334 13.4261 3.5742 0.1269 3.7012 21,413.43 88 21,413.43
88 1.0642 8.0900e-
003
21,442.45
58 Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Energy 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
Mobile 2.8189 27.1503 32.7239 0.1953 12.6251 0.1005 12.7256 3.3947 0.0943 3.4890 20,031.20 18 20,031.20
18 1.0370 20,057.12
71 Total 4.4123 27.4145 32.9523 0.1969 12.6251 0.1206 12.7457 3.3947 0.1144 3.5091 20,348.26 01 20,348.26
01 1.0431 5.8100e-
003
20,376.07
03 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

1.74 2.65 4.67 4.75 5.02 9.63 5.07 5.02 9.88 5.19 0.00 4.97 4.97 1.98 28.18 4.97

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/2021 9/21/2021 5 15 2 Grading Grading 9/22/2021 11/12/2021 5 38
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/13/2021 4/14/2023 5 370 4 Paving Paving 4/15/2023 5/24/2023 5 28
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/25/2023 7/3/2023 5 28 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.04
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 93,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 31,000; Striped Parking Area: 100 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 10.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 223.9310 223.9310 5.4300e-
003
224.0666
Total 0.1096 0.0604 0.7760 2.2500e-
003

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 223.9310 223.9310 5.4300e-
003
224.0666
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0458 0.0000 7.0458 3.8730 0.0000 3.8730 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.9312 19.0656 22.9600 0.0380 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 0.9312 19.0656 22.9600 0.0380 7.0458 0.9462 7.9920 3.8730 0.9462 4.8191 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 223.9310 223.9310 5.4300e-
003
224.0666
Total 0.1096 0.0604 0.7760 2.2500e-
003

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 223.9310 223.9310 5.4300e-
003
224.0666

3.3 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1384 0.0000 7.1384 3.4308 0.0000 3.4308 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 7.1384 1.9853 9.1237 3.4308 1.8265 5.2573 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 248.8122 248.8122 6.0300e-
003
248.9629
Total 0.1218 0.0672 0.8623 2.5000e-
003

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 248.8122 248.8122 6.0300e-
003
248.9629
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7840 0.0000 2.7840 1.3380 0.0000 1.3380 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5231 29.9782 36.7226 0.0620 1.2994 1.2994 1.2994 1.2994 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 1.5231 29.9782 36.7226 0.0620 2.7840 1.2994 4.0834 1.3380 1.2994 2.6374 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 248.8122 248.8122 6.0300e-
003
248.9629
Total 0.1218 0.0672 0.8623 2.5000e-
003

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 248.8122 248.8122 6.0300e-
003
248.9629

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 2.7200e-
003

0.0640 0.0177 2.6000e-
003

0.0203 276.8751 276.8751 0.0335 277.7119
Worker 0.1644 0.0907 1.1640 3.3700e-
003

0.3449 1.9900e-
003

0.3469 0.0915 1.8400e-
003

0.0933 335.8964 335.8964 8.1400e-
003
336.0999
Total 0.1924 1.1633 1.3140 6.0100e-
003

0.4062 4.7100e-
003

0.4109 0.1091 4.4400e-
003

0.1135 612.7715 612.7715 0.0416 613.8118
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 2.7200e-
003

0.0640 0.0177 2.6000e-
003

0.0203 276.8751 276.8751 0.0335 277.7119
Worker 0.1644 0.0907 1.1640 3.3700e-
003

0.3449 1.9900e-
003

0.3469 0.0915 1.8400e-
003

0.0933 335.8964 335.8964 8.1400e-
003
336.0999
Total 0.1924 1.1633 1.3140 6.0100e-
003

0.4062 4.7100e-
003

0.4109 0.1091 4.4400e-
003

0.1135 612.7715 612.7715 0.0416 613.8118

3.4 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 2.3400e-
003

0.0636 0.0177 2.2300e-
003

0.0199 274.2593 274.2593 0.0325 275.0705
Worker 0.1527 0.0810 1.0646 3.2500e-
003

0.3449 1.9300e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7800e-
003

0.0932 323.8046 323.8046 7.2600e-
003
323.9863
Total 0.1788 1.1003 1.2032 5.8700e-
003

0.4062 4.2700e-
003

0.4104 0.1091 4.0100e-
003

0.1131 598.0639 598.0639 0.0397 599.0568
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 2.3400e-
003

0.0636 0.0177 2.2300e-
003

0.0199 274.2593 274.2593 0.0325 275.0705
Worker 0.1527 0.0810 1.0646 3.2500e-
003

0.3449 1.9300e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7800e-
003

0.0932 323.8046 323.8046 7.2600e-
003
323.9863
Total 0.1788 1.1003 1.2032 5.8700e-
003

0.4062 4.2700e-
003

0.4104 0.1091 4.0100e-
003

0.1131 598.0639 598.0639 0.0397 599.0568

3.4 Building Construction - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 7.2000e-
004

0.0620 0.0177 6.9000e-
004

0.0183 267.5106 267.5106 0.0219 268.0592
Worker 0.1423 0.0726 0.9750 3.1300e-
003

0.3449 1.8900e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7400e-
003

0.0932 311.6362 311.6362 6.4800e-
003
311.7983
Total 0.1602 0.8774 1.0887 5.6800e-
003

0.4062 2.6100e-
003

0.4088 0.1091 2.4300e-
003

0.1115 579.1468 579.1468 0.0284 579.8575
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0613 7.2000e-
004

0.0620 0.0177 6.9000e-
004

0.0183 267.5106 267.5106 0.0219 268.0592
Worker 0.1423 0.0726 0.9750 3.1300e-
003

0.3449 1.8900e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7400e-
003

0.0932 311.6362 311.6362 6.4800e-
003
311.7983
Total 0.1602 0.8774 1.0887 5.6800e-
003

0.4062 2.6100e-
003

0.4088 0.1091 2.4300e-
003

0.1115 579.1468 579.1468 0.0284 579.8575

3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 3.7400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.0365 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 173.1312 173.1312 3.6000e-
003
173.2213
Total 0.0791 0.0403 0.5417 1.7400e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 173.1312 173.1312 3.6000e-
003
173.2213
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5609 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 3.7400e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.5647 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 173.1312 173.1312 3.6000e-
003
173.2213
Total 0.0791 0.0403 0.5417 1.7400e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 173.1312 173.1312 3.6000e-
003
173.2213

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 30.8145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003

0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 31.0061 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003

0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 57.7104 57.7104 1.2000e-
003

57.7404
Total 0.0264 0.0135 0.1806 5.8000e-
004

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 57.7104 57.7104 1.2000e-
003

57.7404
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 30.8145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0594 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.8739 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 57.7104 57.7104 1.2000e-
003

57.7404
Total 0.0264 0.0135 0.1806 5.8000e-
004

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 57.7104 57.7104 1.2000e-
003

57.7404

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Implement Trip Reduction Program
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Provide Riade Sharing Program
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.8189 27.1503 32.7239 0.1953 12.6251 0.1005 12.7256 3.3947 0.0943 3.4890 20,031.20 18 20,031.20
18 1.0370 20,057.12
71 Unmitigated 2.8858 27.7933 34.2504 0.2045 13.2926 0.1055 13.3981 3.5742 0.0990 3.6732 20,971.98 09 20,971.98
09 1.0557 20,998.37
37 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Junior College (2Yr) 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Junior College (2Yr) 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 Parking Lot 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0405 0.3679 0.3090 2.2100e-
003

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0405 0.3679 0.3090 2.2100e-
003

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Junior College
(2Yr)

2.69488 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Unmitigated 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005

0.2364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.3274 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 6.0000e- 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Total 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM

0.2364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:53 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Summer Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Fresno City College First Responders Center
Fresno County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Junior College (2Yr) 62.00 1000sqft 40.00 62,000.00 320 Parking Lot 1.66 1000sqft 0.04 1,660.00 0

0.019 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Project Characteristics - Utility intensity factors reflect SB 100 (2018) Renewables Portfolio Standard program.

Water Mitigation - Low-flow indoor water use; water-efficient irrigation systems outdoor water use Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 740.00 370.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 75.00 38.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 55.00 28.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/8/2025 7/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 2/4/2025 4/14/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/5/2022 11/12/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/22/2025 5/24/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/21/2021 9/21/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2025 5/25/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/6/2022 11/13/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/22/2021 9/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 2/5/2025 4/15/2023
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/10/2021 9/1/2021 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 95.00 40.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.42 40.00
tblLandUse Population 0.00 320.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.019 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 417.62 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 6.60 14.35
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 14.70 14.35
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 11.23 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.21 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 27.49 20.25

2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 4.3113 46.4787 31.5820 0.0642 18.2962 2.0458 20.3420 9.9917 1.8821 11.8738 0.0000 6,224.901 9 6,224.901
9 1.9480 0.0000 6,273.601
4 2022 1.8847 16.7350 17.3970 0.0323 0.4062 0.8134 1.2196 0.1091 0.7653 0.8744 0.0000 3,102.814 5 3,102.814
5 0.6551 0.0000 3,119.191
8 2023 31.0323 15.2767 17.1676 0.0322 0.4062 0.7024 1.1085 0.1091 0.6609 0.7700 0.0000 3,086.572 0 3,086.572
0 0.7171 0.0000 3,102.531
0 Maximum 31.0323 46.4787 31.5820 0.0642 18.2962 2.0458 20.3420 9.9917 1.8821 11.8738 0.0000 6,224.901 9 6,224.901
9 1.9480 0.0000 6,273.601
4 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.6432 30.0571 37.4261 0.0642 7.2758 1.3009 8.2233 3.9339 1.3008 4.8813 0.0000 6,224.901 9 6,224.901
9 1.9480 0.0000 6,273.601
3 2022 0.8524 15.3454 18.9073 0.0323 0.4062 0.9079 1.3141 0.1091 0.9077 1.0168 0.0000 3,102.814 5 3,102.814
5 0.6551 0.0000 3,119.191
8 2023 30.9000 15.1179 18.7973 0.0322 0.4062 0.9062 1.3123 0.1091 0.9060 1.0151 0.0000 3,086.572 0 3,086.572
0 0.7171 0.0000 3,102.531
0 Maximum 30.9000 30.0571 37.4261 0.0642 7.2758 1.3009 8.2233 3.9339 1.3008 4.8813 0.0000 6,224.901 9 6,224.901
9 1.9480 0.0000 6,273.601
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

10.30 22.89 -13.58 0.00 57.67 12.54 52.14 59.33 5.86 48.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
Mobile 2.3693 28.5273 30.3003 0.1900 13.2926 0.1060 13.3986 3.5742 0.0995 3.6737 19,521.14 63 19,521.14
63 1.1340 19,549.49
50 Total 3.9741 28.8952 30.6158 0.1922 13.2926 0.1340 13.4266 3.5742 0.1275 3.7017 19,962.60 42 19,962.60
42 1.1425 8.0900e-
003
19,993.57
71 Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Energy 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
Mobile 2.3045 27.8286 29.0642 0.1814 12.6251 0.1010 12.7261 3.3947 0.0948 3.4895 18,639.25 10 18,639.25
10 1.1165 18,667.16
28 Total 3.8979 28.0929 29.2926 0.1830 12.6251 0.1211 12.7462 3.3947 0.1149 3.5096 18,956.30 93 18,956.30
93 1.1226 5.8100e-
003
18,986.10
60 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

1.92 2.78 4.32 4.80 5.02 9.58 5.07 5.02 9.84 5.19 0.00 5.04 5.04 1.74 28.18 5.04

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 9/1/2021 9/21/2021 5 15 2 Grading Grading 9/22/2021 11/12/2021 5 38
3 Building Construction Building Construction 11/13/2021 4/14/2023 5 370 4 Paving Paving 4/15/2023 5/24/2023 5 28
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/25/2023 7/3/2023 5 28 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.04
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 93,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 31,000; Striped Parking Area: 100 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 27.00 10.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Use Soil Stabilizer
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 2.0445 2.0445 1.8809 1.8809 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 3.8882 40.4971 21.1543 0.0380 18.0663 2.0445 20.1107 9.9307 1.8809 11.8116 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 196.0726 196.0726 4.6600e-
003
196.1891
Total 0.1081 0.0710 0.6332 1.9700e-
003

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 196.0726 196.0726 4.6600e-
003
196.1891
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0458 0.0000 7.0458 3.8730 0.0000 3.8730 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.9312 19.0656 22.9600 0.0380 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.9462 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 Total 0.9312 19.0656 22.9600 0.0380 7.0458 0.9462 7.9920 3.8730 0.9462 4.8191 0.0000 3,685.656 9 3,685.656
9 1.1920 3,715.457
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 196.0726 196.0726 4.6600e-
003
196.1891
Total 0.1081 0.0710 0.6332 1.9700e-
003

0.2299 1.3300e-
003

0.2312 0.0610 1.2200e-
003

0.0622 196.0726 196.0726 4.6600e-
003
196.1891

3.3 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.1384 0.0000 7.1384 3.4308 0.0000 3.4308 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 1.9853 1.9853 1.8265 1.8265 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 4.1912 46.3998 30.8785 0.0620 7.1384 1.9853 9.1237 3.4308 1.8265 5.2573 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 217.8585 217.8585 5.1800e-
003
217.9879
Total 0.1201 0.0789 0.7035 2.1900e-
003

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 217.8585 217.8585 5.1800e-
003
217.9879
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.7840 0.0000 2.7840 1.3380 0.0000 1.3380 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5231 29.9782 36.7226 0.0620 1.2994 1.2994 1.2994 1.2994 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 Total 1.5231 29.9782 36.7226 0.0620 2.7840 1.2994 4.0834 1.3380 1.2994 2.6374 0.0000 6,007.043 4 6,007.043
4 1.9428 6,055.613
4 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 217.8585 217.8585 5.1800e-
003
217.9879
Total 0.1201 0.0789 0.7035 2.1900e-
003

0.2555 1.4800e-
003

0.2569 0.0678 1.3600e-
003

0.0691 217.8585 217.8585 5.1800e-
003
217.9879

0.0613 2.8400e-
003

0.0641 0.0177 2.7200e-
003

0.0204 267.5302 267.5302 0.0380 268.4807
Worker 0.1622 0.1065 0.9498 2.9500e-
003

0.3449 1.9900e-
003

0.3469 0.0915 1.8400e-
003

0.0933 294.1090 294.1090 6.9900e-
003
294.2837
Total 0.1917 1.1858 1.1316 5.5000e-
003

0.4062 4.8300e-
003

0.4110 0.1091 4.5600e-
003

0.1137 561.6391 561.6391 0.0450 562.7643
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0613 2.8400e-
003

0.0641 0.0177 2.7200e-
003

0.0204 267.5302 267.5302 0.0380 268.4807
Worker 0.1622 0.1065 0.9498 2.9500e-
003

0.3449 1.9900e-
003

0.3469 0.0915 1.8400e-
003

0.0933 294.1090 294.1090 6.9900e-
003
294.2837
Total 0.1917 1.1858 1.1316 5.5000e-
003

0.4062 4.8300e-
003

0.4110 0.1091 4.5600e-
003

0.1137 561.6391 561.6391 0.0450 562.7643

0.0613 2.4500e-
003

0.0637 0.0177 2.3400e-
003

0.0200 264.9417 264.9417 0.0369 265.8646
Worker 0.1510 0.0951 0.8653 2.8400e-
003

0.3449 1.9300e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7800e-
003

0.0932 283.5392 283.5392 6.2300e-
003
283.6950
Total 0.1785 1.1194 1.0336 5.3700e-
003

0.4062 4.3800e-
003

0.4106 0.1091 4.1200e-
003

0.1132 548.4809 548.4809 0.0432 549.5596
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,554.333 6 2,554.333
6 0.6120 2,569.632
2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0613 2.4500e-
003

0.0637 0.0177 2.3400e-
003

0.0200 264.9417 264.9417 0.0369 265.8646
Worker 0.1510 0.0951 0.8653 2.8400e-
003

0.3449 1.9300e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7800e-
003

0.0932 283.5392 283.5392 6.2300e-
003
283.6950
Total 0.1785 1.1194 1.0336 5.3700e-
003

0.4062 4.3800e-
003

0.4106 0.1091 4.1200e-
003

0.1132 548.4809 548.4809 0.0432 549.5596

0.0613 7.4000e-
004

0.0620 0.0177 7.1000e-
004

0.0184 258.4590 258.4590 0.0250 259.0831
Worker 0.1411 0.0852 0.7893 2.7400e-
003

0.3449 1.8900e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7400e-
003

0.0932 272.9031 272.9031 5.5500e-
003
273.0419
Total 0.1600 0.8918 0.9236 5.2100e-
003

0.4062 2.6300e-
003

0.4088 0.1091 2.4500e-
003

0.1116 531.3621 531.3621 0.0305 532.1250
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.0000 2,555.209 9 2,555.209
9 0.6079 2,570.406
1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0613 7.4000e-
004

0.0620 0.0177 7.1000e-
004

0.0184 258.4590 258.4590 0.0250 259.0831
Worker 0.1411 0.0852 0.7893 2.7400e-
003

0.3449 1.8900e-
003

0.3468 0.0915 1.7400e-
003

0.0932 272.9031 272.9031 5.5500e-
003
273.0419
Total 0.1600 0.8918 0.9236 5.2100e-
003

0.4062 2.6300e-
003

0.4088 0.1091 2.4500e-
003

0.1116 531.3621 531.3621 0.0305 532.1250

3.5 Paving - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 3.7400e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 151.6128 151.6128 3.0800e-
003
151.6899
Total 0.0784 0.0473 0.4385 1.5200e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 151.6128 151.6128 3.0800e-
003
151.6899
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5609 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.0000 2,207.584 1 2,207.584
1 0.7140 2,225.433
6 Paving 3.7400e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 151.6128 151.6128 3.0800e-
003
151.6899
Total 0.0784 0.0473 0.4385 1.5200e-
003

0.1916 1.0500e-
003

0.1926 0.0508 9.6000e-
004

0.0518 151.6128 151.6128 3.0800e-
003
151.6899

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 30.8145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003

0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 31.0061 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003

0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 50.5376 50.5376 1.0300e-
003

50.5633
Total 0.0261 0.0158 0.1462 5.1000e-
004

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 50.5376 50.5376 1.0300e-
003

50.5633
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 30.8145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0594 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.8739 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e-
003

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 50.5376 50.5376 1.0300e-
003

50.5633
Total 0.0261 0.0158 0.1462 5.1000e-
004

0.0639 3.5000e-
004

0.0642 0.0169 3.2000e-
004

0.0173 50.5376 50.5376 1.0300e-
003

50.5633

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Implement Trip Reduction Program
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Provide Riade Sharing Program
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.3045 27.8286 29.0642 0.1814 12.6251 0.1010 12.7261 3.3947 0.0948 3.4895 18,639.25 10 18,639.25
10 1.1165 18,667.16
28 Unmitigated 2.3693 28.5273 30.3003 0.1900 13.2926 0.1060 13.3986 3.5742 0.0995 3.6737 19,521.14 63 19,521.14
63 1.1340 19,549.49
50 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Junior College (2Yr) 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,255.50 0.00 0.00 4,391,830 4,171,269

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Junior College (2Yr) 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 Parking Lot 0.501421 0.030018 0.171383 0.107490 0.013683 0.004097 0.033773 0.127911 0.002341 0.001406 0.004884 0.001058 0.000535 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0405 0.3679 0.3090 2.2100e-
003

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 30
Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

8.0900e-
003
444.0673
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0405 0.3679 0.3090 2.2100e-
003

0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 441.4440 441.4440 8.4600e-
003

2.69488 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0291 0.2642 0.2219 1.5900e-
003

0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 0.0201 317.0443 317.0443 6.0800e-
003

5.8100e-
003
318.9284

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005
Unmitigated 1.5644 6.0000e- 6.4900e- 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0139 0.0139 4.0000e- 0.0148 005 003 005 005 005 005 005

0.2364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 30 Date: 4/12/2021 12:55 PM Fresno City College First Responders Center - Fresno County, Winter Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

11.0 Vegetation

APPENDIX B

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Table B-1. Calculation Assumptions
Assumptions Value Units Source/Justification
Maximum number of burns per year 15 burns/year Fire Academy Material used per burn (sheets plywood) 1024 2ft 1/2" or 7/8" OSB. Fire Academy Material used per burn (dimensional lumber) 32 pallets Fire Academy Material used per burn (bales of hay) 2 bales Fire Academy Chain Saw 8.53 hrs/burn Eight 8-hr days per class (64 total hrs), two classes per year. Fire Academy Rotary Saw 8.53 hrs/burn Eight 8-hr days per class (64 total hrs), two classes per year. Fire Academy Positive Pressure Fan 4.26 hrs/burn Two 8-hr days per class (16 total hrs), two classes per year. Fire Academy Plywood thickness 7/8 inch Fire Academy
Density of plywood 750 3kg/m Conservative estimate
Density of hay 300 3kg/m Conservative estimate
Volume of hay bale 10.67 3ft "Three String" Bale at 16"x48"x24" Weight of pallet 48 lbs Grocery Manufacturers Association Max Pallet Weight Kilograms to pounds 2.2046 lbs/kg Conversion Factor
Meters to feet 3.28084 ft/m Conversion Factor
Cubic meters to cubic feet 35.3147 ft3/m3 Conversion Factor

Table B-2. Fuel Usage
Fuel Type lbs/burn Formula
Weight of 32 Pallets 1536.0 (32 pallets * 48 lbs/pallet) Weight of 2 Bales of Hay 399.7 3 3 3 3(2 bales * 10.67 ft /bale * 300 kg/m * 2.2 lbs/kg) / (35.3147 ft /m ) 3Weight of 75ft Plywood Sheets 3488.6 2 3 3 3(1024 ft plywood * 0.07291667 ft thick * 750 kg/m * 2.2046 lbs/kg) / (35.3147 ft /m ) Total Weight 5424.3

Table B-3. Fuel Emission Factors
AP-42 Source
lbs emissions / ton material
CO 2SOx NOx ROG PM10
3PM2.5
4CO2
4CH4
1Unspecified Forest Residues 140 1 4 19 17 8.5 3143.4 21.7

1. EPA. 1995. AP-42 Table 2.5-5 Emission Factors for Open Burning of Agricultural Materials (wood is considered agricultural material)

2. EPA. 1995. AP-42 Table 2.5-1 Emission Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Refuse (Municipal Refuse)

3. PM2.5 emissions estimated to be half of total PM emissions

4. EPA. 2001. Emissions Inventory Improvement Program Volume III Ch. 16

Table B-4. Equipment Emission Factors
Equipment Category HP Load Factor g/hp-hr
CO SOx NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO2
1Chain Saw (2-Stroke Phase 2) 6 50% 283.4 0.1 0.9 48 7.7 7.7 726.7 1Rotary Saw (2-Stroke Phase 2) 6 60% 283.4 0.1 0.9 48 7.7 7.7 726.7 1Positive Pressure Fan (2-Stroke Phase 2) 5.5 60% 283.4 0.1 0.9 48 7.7 7.7 726.7

1. Offroad emission factors and parameters derived from EPA 420-R-10-019 and CARB SORE State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020039018)

Appendix C
Energy Analysis

ENERGY

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

F OR T HE P ROPOSED

S TATE C ENTER C OMMUNITY

C OLLEGE D ISTRICT

F IRST R ESPONDERS

C AMPUS P ROJECT

OUNTY OF F RESNO , CA

A
PRIL 2021

PREPARED FOR:

ODELL PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.
49346 ROAD 426, SUITE 2
OAKHURST, CA 93644

PREPARED BY:

612 12TH STREET, SUITE 201
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
TEL: 805.226.2727

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Energy Fundamentals ................................................................................................................................................................ ..... 4 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................................................................ ................. 4 Energy Resources ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Electricity ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 State........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Local ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................................................................................ 12 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Construction Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Operational Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 13 References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Construction Energy Consumption ................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 2. Operational Fuel Consumption ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Operational Electricity, Water, and Natural Gas Consumption .................................................................................. 14

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Pacific Gas & Electric 2019 Power Content Label ......................................................................................................... 7

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Energy Modeling

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
AFV Alternative Fuel Vehicle
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
ARB California Air Resource Board
BSC Building Standards Commission
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CBC California Building Code
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
EAP Energy Action Plan
EMFAC Emissions Factor
EO Executive Order
EPAct Energy Policy Act
GHG Greenhouse Gas
kBTU Kilo British Thermal Units
kWh Kilowatt Hour
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
mpg Miles per Gallon
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NHSTA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAF State Alternative Fuel
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCCD State Center Community College District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Mile Traveled

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 4 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of potential energy impacts associated with the proposed First Responders Campus Project. This report also provides a summary of existing conditions in the project area and the applicable regulatory framework pertaining to energy.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The State Center Community College District (SCCCD) is proposing to undertake the First Responders Campus Project (project).

The SCCCD proposed campus for first responders is to be located on the western half of an approximately 40-acre site northwest of the intersection of Willow and North Avenues in Fresno County, California. The proposed campus will include a fire academy, police academy, and EMT training in numerous small cohorts moving through the academy programs. Approximate ly 270 students would be on the campus at any one time, staffed by up to 50 employees, including administrators, faculty, and support staff. Site access is expected to be from one or more driveways connecting to North Avenue, with left turns into the site allowed from eastbound North Avenue.

The facilities will include a total of approximately 62,000 square feet of building area with a spot tower, a scenario village, and a virtual-reality/simulation laboratory, which may include joint use with the City of Fresno and other agencies. The police and fire academies are expected to begin daily operations at 7:00 a.m. and finish at approximately 5:00 p.m., although night classes until 10:00 p.m. are possible. Day courses for EMT training are likely to begin at 8:0 0 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays.

Evening courses for EMT training are likely to start at 6:00 p.m. and end by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023.

A site vicinity map is presented in Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, and a site plan is presented in Figure 2, Site Plan.

ENERGY FUNDAMENTALS
Energy use is typically associated with transportation, construction, and the operation of land uses.

Transportation energy use is generally categorized by direct and indirect energy. Direct energy relates to energy consumption by vehicle propulsion. Indirect energy relates to the long -term indirect energy consumption of equipment, such as maintenance activities. Energy is also consumed by construction and routine operation and maintenance of land use. Construction energy relates to a direct one -time energy expenditure primarily associated with the consumption of fuel use d to operate construction equipment.

Energy-related to land use is normally associated with direct energy consumption for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning of buildings.

EXISTING SETTING
The project is located in the County of Fresno . The project area has a semi-arid climate with an annual average precipitation of approximately 11 inches. Temperatures in the project area range from an average minimum of approximately 37 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), in December, to an average maximum of 98°F, in July (WRCC 2021).

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 5 Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Source: PEG 2021

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 6 Figure 2. Site Plan
Source: PEG 2021

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 7 Energy Resources
Energy sources for the County of Fresno are primarily served by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E ) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) . Energy resources consist largely of natural gas, nuclear, fossil fuels, hydropower, solar, and wind. The primary use of energy sources is for electricity to operate buildings.

Electricity
Electric services in the County of Fresno are provided by PG&E.

Pacific Gas & Electric
The breakdown of PG&E’s power mix is shown in Figure 3. As shown, PG&E’s energy generation was supplied from approximately 29% of renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass and waste, geother mal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 27% of large hydroelectric sources, and 44% of nuclear sources. Participation in PG&E as an electricity provider is mandatory.

Figure 3. Pacific Gas & Electric 2019 Power Content Label Source: PG&E 2020a
Natural Gas
Natural gas services in the County of Fresno are provided by PG&E and SoCalGas. PG&E’s natural gas system encompasses approximately 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. Natural gas throughput provided by PG&E totals approximately 2.6 billion cubic feet per day (PG&E 2020b). SoCalGas’s natural gas system encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles in Southern California (SoCalGas 2020). Natural gas throughput provided by SoCalGas totals approximately 2.8 billion cubic feet per day (SoCalGas 2013). 29%
27%
44% Renewable
Large Hydroelectric
Nuclear

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 8 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
In October 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), on behalf of the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), issued final rules to further reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond. NHTSA’s CAFE standards have been enacted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act since 1978. This national program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single light -duty national fleet that meets all requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states. This program would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of carbon dioxide (CO2) per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by the model year 2025.

In January 2017, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed a Final Determination to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for the model year 2022 -2025 vehicles. However, on March 15, 2017, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and U.S. DOT Secretary Elaine Chao announced that U.S. EPA intends to reconsider the Final Determination. On April 2, 2018, U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt officially withdrew the January 2017 Final Determination, citing information that suggests that these current standards may be too stringent due to changes in key assumptions since the January 2017 Determination. According to the U.S. EPA, these key assumptions include gasoline prices and overly optimistic consumer acceptance of advanced technology vehicles. The April 2 , 2018 notice is not U.S . EPA’s final agency action. The U.S. EPA intends to initiate rulemaking to adopt new standards. Until that rulemaking has been completed, the current standards remain in effect. (U.S. EPA 2017, U.S. EPA 2018).

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 sought to ensure that all vehicles sold in the U nited States would meet certain fuel economy goals. Through this Act, Congress established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the U.S. Pursuant to the Act, the NHSTA, which is part of the U.S. DOT, is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 mpg. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 mpg. Heavy -duty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not currently subject to fuel economy standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. The CAFE program, administered by U.S. EPA, was created to determine vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with the fuel economy standards. U.S. EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. Based on the information generated under the CAFE program, the U.S. DOT is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance.

Energy Policy Act of 1992
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventor y of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light -duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.

Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was signed into law on August 8, 2005. Generally, the Act provides for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 9 bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

State
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren -Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission (CEC). The Act established a state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employ ing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately -owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.

Assembly Bill 32: Climate Change Scoping Plan and Update In October 2008, ARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, which is the State’s plan to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 32. This initial Scoping Plan contained the main strategies to be implemented in order to achieve the target emission levels identified in AB 32. The Scoping Plan included ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory.

The initial Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and is updated every five years.

The first update of the Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on May 22, 2014, which looked past 2020 to set mid-term goals (2030- 2035) on the road to reach the 2050 goals (ARB 2014). The most recent update released by ARB is the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which was released in November 2017. The measures identified in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan have the co -benefit of increasing energy efficiency and reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuels.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statues of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels (SAF) Plan in partnership with ARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non -petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in -state production of biofuels without causing significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), CEC and the California Air Resource Board (ARB) prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dep endence.

Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita ve hicle miles traveled (VMT) (ARB 2003). Further, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, Governor Davis directed CEC to take the lead in developing a long - term plan to increase alternative fuel use. A performance- based goal of AB 2076 was to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand by 2020.

Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Prevention Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 10 by December 31, 2030. This act also requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will address land use allocation in that MPOs regional transportation plan (RTP). ARB, in consultation with MPOs, establishes regional reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets wil l be updated every eight years but can be updated every four years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, funding for transportation projects may be withheld.

Senate Bill 1078: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program Senate Bill (SB) 1078 (Public Utilities Code Sections 387, 390.1, 399.25 and Ar ticle 16) addresses electricity supply and requires that retail sellers of electricity, including investor -owned utilities and community choice aggregators, provide a minimum of 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This SB will affect statewide GHG emissions associated with electricity generation. In 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order (EO) S-14-08, which set the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) target to 33 percent by 2020. It directed state government agencies and retail sellers of electricity to take all appropriate actions to implement this target. EO S-14-08 was later superseded by EO S-21-09 on September 15, 2009. EO S-21-09 directed the ARB to adopt regulations requiring 33 percent of electricity sold in the S tate to come from renewable energy by 2020. Statute SB X1 -2 superseded this EO in 2011, which obligated all California electricity providers, including investor- owned utilities and publicly owned utilities, to obtain at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable electrical generation facilities by 2020.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
SB 32 was signed by Governor Brown on September 8, 2016. SB 32 effectively extends California’s GHG emission-reduction goals from year 2020 to year 2030. This new emission-reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is intended to promote further GHG reductions in support of the State’s ultimate goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 also directs the ARB t o update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to address this interim 2030 emission -reduction target. Achievement of these goals will have the co-benefit of increasing energy efficiency and reducing California’s dependency on fossil fuels.

Executive Order S-06-06
EO S-06-06, signed on April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, a nd 75 percent by 2050.

The EO also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduc tion, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
• increase environmentally- and economically-sustainable energy production from organic waste; • encourage the development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications;
• create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state; and • reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 11 In 2019, 2.87 percent of the total electrical system power in California was derived from biomass (CEC 2020).

Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles
In January 2018, Governor Brown signed EO B-48-18 which required all State entities to work with the private sector to put at least 5 -million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 zero -emissions chargers by 2025. In addition, State entities are also required to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. Additionally, all State entities are to support and recommend policies and actions to expand infrastructure in homes, through the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard.

Energy Action Plan
The first Energy Action Plan (EAP) emerged in 2003 from a crisis atmosphere in California’s energy markets.

The State’s three major energy policy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and the Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority [established under deregulation and now defunct]) came together to develop one high- level, coherent approach to meeting California’s electricity and natural gas needs. It was the first time that energy policy agencies formally collaborated to define a common v ision and set of strategies to address California’s future energy needs and emphasize the importance of the impacts of energy policy on the California environment.

In the October 2005 EAP II, CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC is adopted every three years by the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In the interim, the BSC also adopts annual updates to make necessary mid - term corrections. The CBC standards apply statewide; however, a local jurisdiction may amend a CBC standard if it makes a finding that the amendment is reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

Green Building Standards
In essence, green buildings standards are indistinguishable from any other building standards, are contained in the CBC , and regulate the construction of new buildings and improvements. Whereas the focus of traditional building standards has been protecting public health and safety, the focus of green building standards is to improve environmental performance.

The green buildings standards were updated in May 2018. Referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, these updates focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the newly adopted standards, nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018).

Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 20 12, ARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles, into a single package of standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The new rules strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 models and beyond. This will be achieved through existing technologies, the use of stronger and lighter materials, and more efficient drivetrains and engines. The program’s zero -emission vehicle regulation requires a battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 12 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also includes a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the commercialization of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned by vehicle manufacturers by 2015 by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the state.

The number of stations will grow as vehicle manufacturers sell more fuel cell vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the statewide fleet in 2016 (ARB 2016).

Local
Fresno County General Plan
The Fresno County General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term framework for the protection of the county’s agricultural, natural, and cultural resources and for development in the county (County of Fresno 2000) .

Designed to meet State general plan requirements, it outlines policies, standards, and programs and sets out plan proposals to guide day-to-day decisions concerning Fresno County’s future. Applicable energy policies and programs include, but are not limited to:
• Policy LU-H.7(j): Energy conservation, and utilization of renewable resources should be given prominent consideration.
• Program H -I.B: The County shall consider inclusion of design standards for new development that encourage alternative transportation (for example, bi cycle lanes, bus turnouts, and direct pedestrian connections to transit lines) as a part of the update of the County Zoning Ordinance to conserve energy and improve air quality.
• Policy H-J.2: The County shall promote public awareness of the need for energy conservation. • Policy H -J.5: The County shall promote and support Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s “Energy Partnership Program” aimed at education and conservation efforts. • Policy H-J.5: The County shall promote and encourage the use of architectur al design standards that reduce energy use.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix F and G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, energy use impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if it would:
a) Result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation; or
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, requires environmental analyses to include a discussion of potential energy impacts associated with a proposed project. Where necessary, CEQA requires that mitigation measures be incorporated to reduce the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. The State CEQA Guidelines, however, do not establish criteria that define inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption. Compliance with the State’s building standards for energy efficiency would result in decreased energy consumption for proposed buildings. However, compliance with building codes may not adequately address all potential energy impacts associated with project construction and operation. As a result, this analysis incl udes an evaluation of electricity and natural gas usage requirements associated with future development, as well as, energy requirements associated with the use of on-road and off-road vehicles. The degree to which the proposed project would comply with ex isting energy standards, as well as, applicable regulatory requirements and policies related to energy conservation was also taken into consideration for the evaluation of project-related energy impacts.

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 13 Methodology
Construction Impacts
Regarding energy use during construction (e.g., fuel use), it is assumed that only diesel fuel would be used in construction equipment. On-road vehicles for hauling materials and worker commute trips are assumed to use a mix of diesel and gasoline fuel. Construction schedules, equipment numbers, horsepower ratings, and load factors were used to calculate construction-related fuel use, based on default assumptions contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. Diesel fuel use was estimated based on a factor of 0.05 gallons of diesel fuel per horsepower -hour derived from the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993). Energy uses were quantified for site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Demolition is not anticipated during construction.

Operational Impacts
The long-term operation of the proposed project would require electricity and natural gas usage for lighting, water conveyance, and landscaping maintenance equipment . Indirect energy use would include solid waste removal. Project operation would include the consumption of diesel and gasoline fuel from on -road vehicles. Building energy use was estimated using the CalEEMod. With continued improvements in building energy efficiencies, energy use in future years would be less. Transportation fuel -use estimates were calculated by applying average fuel usage rates per vehicle mile to VMT associated with the proposed project. A maximum daily trip rate of 1,256 was used to calculate mobile-source emissions (PEG 2021). Annual energy usage was quantified based on CalEEMod default assumptions for PG&E, including compliance with the RPS. Average fuel usage rates by vehicle class, fuel type (e.g., diesel, gasoline, electric, and natural gas), and calendar year were obtained for Fresno County’s emissions inventory and derived from ARB’s Emissions Factors (EMFAC) 2017 version 1.0.3 (ARB 2017).

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact E-A. Would the project result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?
Im
plementation of the proposed project would increase electricity, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas consumption associated with construction activities, as well as long -term operational activities. Energy consumption associated with short -term construction and long -term operational activities are discussed in greater detail, as follows:

Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Energy consumption would occur during construction, including fuel use associated with the on -site operation of off-road equipment and vehicles traveling to and from the construction site. Table 1 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with project construction. As depicted, the operation of off - road construction equipment would use an annual estimated of 32,376 gallons of diesel. On-road vehicles would use an annual estimated of 31,490 gallons of gasoline and 322 gallons of diesel. In total, construction fuel use would equate to approximately 8,281 million British thermal units ( MMBTU) per year. Construction equipment use and associated energy consumption would be typical of that commonly associated with the construction of new land uses. As a result, project construction would not be anticipated to require the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than those commonly used for the construction of similar facilities. Furthermore, on -site construction equipment may include alternatively -fueled vehicles (e.g., natural gas) where feasible. Energy use associated with the construction of the proposed project would be temporary and would not be anticipated to result in the need for additional ca pacity, nor would construction be anticipated to result in increased peak -period demands for electricity. As a result, the construction of the proposed project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. As a result, impacts are considered less than significant.

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 14 Table 1. Construction Energy Consumption
Source Annual Fuel Use (gallons) Annual MMBTU
Off-Road Equipment Use (Diesel) 32,376 4,448
On-Road Vehicles (Gasoline) 31,490 3,789
On-Road Vehicles (Diesel) 322 44
Total: 8,281
MMBTU = Million British thermal units
Fuel use was calculated based, in part, on default construction schedules, the equipment uses, and vehicle trips identified f or the construction of similar land uses contained in the CalEEMod output files prepared for the air quality analysis conducted for this project.

Refer to Appendix A for modeling assumptions and results.

Operational Mobile-Source Energy Consumption
Operational mobile-source energy consumption would be primarily associated with vehicle trips to and from the project. Energy use associated with commute trips are discussed in greater detail, as follows:

Table 2 summarizes the annual fuel use at build-out. As shown in Table 2, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed land use would consume an annual estimated 67,076 gallons of diesel and 138,738 gallons of gasoline. The development of increasingly efficient automobile engines would result in increase d energy efficiency and energy conservation. Implementation of GHG Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would also ensure that the proposed project reduces motor vehicle use and operational fuel consumption . The proposed project would not result in increased fuel usage that would be considered unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful. This impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 2. Operational Fuel Consumption
Source Annual Fuel Use (gallons) Annual MMBTU
On-Road Vehicles (Diesel) 67,076 9,215
On-Road Vehicles (Gasoline) 138,738 16,695
Total: 25,910
MMBTU = Million British thermal units
Fuel use was calculated based, in part, on project trip generation rates derived from the traffic analysis for the project.

Refer to Appendix A for modeling assumptions and results.

Operational Building-Us e Energy Consumption
The proposed project would result in increased electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the long-term operation of the proposed land use.

Estimated electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the proposed facilities are summarized in Table 3. As depicted, the project would result in the annual consumption of approximately 708,040 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, 27,291 kWh of water, and 1,369,580 kilo British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas. In total, the proposed project would consume a n annual total of approximately 3,879 MMBTU. The development of increasingly efficient building fixtures would result in increased energy efficiency and energy conservation. The project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the CEC (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). Adherence to Title 24 requirements and previously noted, Fresno County General Plan energy policies and programs would ensure that the project would not result in wasteful and inefficient use of non -renewable resources due to building op eration. For this reason, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 3. Operational Electricity, Water, and Natural Gas Consumption Source Annual Energy Use Annual MMBTU
Electricity (kWh) 708,040 2,416
Water (kWh) 27,291 93
Natural Gas Use (kBTU) 1,369,580 1,370
Total: 3,879
MMBTU = Million British thermal units; kWh = Kilowatt hour; kBTU = Kilo British thermal unit

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 15 Impact E-B. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

The project would be required to be in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards and building energy efficiency standards. Furthermore, implementation of GHG Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would comply with applicable Fresno County General Plan energy policies and programs.

The energy policies and programs ensure the conservation and preservation of energy resources by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and buildings to the use of alternative forms of energy. The project would not conflict with other goals and policies set forth Fresno County General Plan pertaining to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Furthermore, implementation of GHG Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that t he proposed project reduces motor vehicle use and operational fuel consumption. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with state or local plan s for renewable energy or energy efficiency, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Energy Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project April 2021 16 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/ab2076final.pdf California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scopin g_plan.pdf California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory – Categories. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. California Biomass and Waste-To-Energy Statistics and Data. Available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/biomass/index_cms.php County of Fresno. 2000. Fresno County General Plan. Policy Document. Website URL:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument?id=18117 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2020a. Where your electricity comes from. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill- inserts/2020/1220-PowerContent-ADA.pdf
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2020b. Learn about the PG&E natural gas system. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the-system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/natural-gas-system- overview.page
Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1- 1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2013. Pipeline Basics. Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/PipelineBasics.pdf Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2020. Natural Gas Transmission. Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/stay-safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-transmission United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017. Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- vehicles-and-engines/midterm-evaluation-lightduty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Mid-term Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Year 2022-2025 Light-duty Vehicles. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018- 04/documents/mte-final-determination-notice-2018-04-02.pdf Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. FRESNO YOSEMITE INTL AP, CALIFORNIA (043257). Website URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3257

APPENDIX A

ENERGY MODELING
Energy Use Summary
Construction Energy Use
Annual Gallons Annual MMBTU
Off-Road Equipment Fuel (Diesel) 32,376 4,448 On-Road Vehicle Fuel (Gasoline) 31,490 3,789 On-Road Vehicle Fuel (Diesel) 322 44
8,281
MMBTU = Million British thermal unit
Operational Fuel Use
Annual Gallons Annual MMBTU
Mobile Fuel (Diesel) 67,076 9,215
Mobile Fuel (Gasoline) 138,738 16,695
25,910
MMBTU = Million British thermal unit
Operational Electricity, Water, and Natural Gas Use
Annual Energy Annual MMBTU
Electricity (kWh) 708,040 2,416
Water Use, Treatment & Conveyance (kWh) 27,291 93
Natural Gas (kBTU) 1,369,580 1,370
3,879
MMBTU = Million British thermal unit; kWh = Kilowatt hour; kBTU = Kilo British thermal unit Total:

Total:

Construction Fuel Use - Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUEL USE
Primary Construction Activity
Activity
Duration
(Days)
Equipment Type Size (hp) Number of
Pieces
Hours of Daily
Use/Piece of
Equipment
Total Days of
Use Load Factor Fuel Usage Rate
(gal/hp-h)
Total Fuel Diesel
(Gallons)
Excavators 158 0 0 0 0.38 0.05 0
Concrete Saws 81 0 0 0 0.73 0.05 0
Rubber Tired Dozer 247 0 0 0 0.40 0.05 0
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 3 8 15 0.40 0.05 1,778
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 4 8 15 0.37 0.05 861
Excavators 158 2 8 38 0.38 0.05 1,825
Graders 187 1 8 38 0.41 0.05 1,165
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 1 8 38 0.40 0.05 1,502
Scrapers 367 2 8 38 0.48 0.05 5,355
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 2 8 38 0.37 0.05 1,091
Cranes 231 1 7 370 0.29 0.05 8,675
Forklifts 89 3 8 370 0.20 0.05 7,903
Generator Sets 84 1 8 370 0.74 0.05 9,200
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 3 7 370 0.37 0.05 13,943
Welders 46 1 8 370 0.45 0.05 3,064
Pavers 130 2 8 28 0.42 0.05 1,223
Paving Equipment 132 2 8 28 0.36 0.05 1,064
Rollers 80 2 8 28 0.38 0.05 681
Architectural Coating 28 Air Compressors 78 1 6 28 0.48 0.05 314 Total Diesel Fuel Use (Gallons): 59,646
Number of Construction Years: 1.8
Average Diesel Fuel Use/Year: 32,376
BTU/Gallon: 137,381
BTU: 8,194,273,011
MMBTU: 8,194
MMBTU/Year: 4,448
Equipment usage assumptions based on default assumptions contained in CalEEMod.

Paving 28
hp = Horsepower; gal/hp-h = Gallons per horsepower - hour; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit Building Construction 370
Demolition 0
Site Preparation 15
Grading 38
Construction Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles

ON-ROAD VEHICLE FUEL USE
Activity Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating Total LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV HDV
Days 15 38 370 28 28
Worker Trips 18 20 27 15 5
Miles/Trip 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8 16.8
Total VMT 4,536 12,768 167,832 7,056 2,352 194,544 64,848 64,848 64,848 0 0 Vendor Trips 0 0 10 0 0
Miles/Trip 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6
Total VMT 0 0 24,420 0 0 24,420 0 0 0 24,420 0
Haul Trips 0 0 0 0 0
Miles/Trip 20 20 20 20 20
Total VMT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VMT = Vehicle miles traveled
Gasoline Total VMT Gallons/Mile* Gallons BTU/Gallon** BTU MMBTU MMBTU/Year Gallons/Year LDA 63,859 0.27 17,006 120,333 2,046,442,644 2,046 1,111 9,231 LDT1 63,859 0.30 18,939 120,333 2,279,003,315 2,279 1,237 10,280 LDT2 63,859 0.33 21,181 120,333 2,548,748,164 2,549 1,383 11,497 MDV 24,047 0.04 888 120,333 106,898,419 107 58 482
*Gallons per mile based on year 2021 conditions for Fresno County. Derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory. **Energy coefficient derived from U.S. EIA.

Diesel Total VMT Gallons/Mile* Gallons BTU/Gallon** BTU MMBTU MMBTU/Year Gallons/Year LDA 989 0.17 170 137,381 23,347,938 23 13 92
LDT1 989 0.18 174 137,381 23,913,577 24 13 94
LDT2 989 0.24 236 137,381 32,392,517 32 18 128
MDV 373 0.04 14 137,381 1,890,818 2 1 7
*Gallons per mile based on year 2021 conditions for Fresno County. Derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory. **Energy coefficient derived from U.S. EIA.

VMT = Vehicle miles traveled; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit VMT = Vehicle miles traveled; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit Construction Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles
Construction Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles
EMFAC2017 Fuel Rate Calculation
Diesel Gasoline Diesel Gasoline TOTAL
LDA 2.24 450.58 13041.17 1691918.99
LDT1 0.02 52.13 93.98 175754.88
LDT2 0.64 198.00 2687.42 596970.03
MDV 3.20 215.18 86518.71 4140987.57
Total 6.09 915.89 102341.28 6605631.46 6707972.74
Percent of Total 0.02 0.98
LDA-Miles/Gallon 5.82 3.75
LDA-Gallons/Mile 0.17 0.27
LDT1-Miles/Gallon 5.68 3.37
LDT1-Gallons/Mile 0.18 0.30
LDT2-Miles/Gallon 4.20 3.01
LDT2-Gallons/Mile 0.24 0.33
MDV-Miles/Gallon 27.07 19.24
MDV-Gallons/Mile 0.04 0.05
VMT = Vehicle miles traveled
Fuel consumption and VMT based on Fresno County.
*Fuel consumptions derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) for year 2021 conditIons. **VMT derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) for year 2021 conditons.

Fuel Consumption (1000
Gallons/Day)* VMT (Miles/Day)**
Operational Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles

ON-ROAD VEHICLE FUEL USE
LAND USE Annual VMT
Junior College 4,391,830
Total 4,391,830
VMT = Vehicle miles traveled
Annual VMT Gallons/Mile* Gallons BTU/Gallon** BTU MMBTU Diesel 586,245 0.11 67,076 137,381 9,214,997,389 9,215
Gasoline 3,805,585 0.04 138,738 120,333 16,694,722,701 16,695 VMT = Vehicle miles traveled; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit *Gallons per mile based on year 2024 conditions for Fresno County. Derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory. **Energy coefficient derived from U.S. EIA.

Operational Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles
Operational Fuel Use - On-Road Vehicles
EMFAC2017 Fuel Rate Calculation
Diesel Gasoline Diesel Gasoline
All Other Buses 1.126075202 10917.78051
LDA 2.617033897 439.3860413 143056.4597 14641841.35
LDT1 0.012078067 50.40365765 320.9439304 1420789.367
LDT2 0.796226704 182.0001116 32232.39337 4794679.772
LHD1 18.80412128 38.41151607 343899.4509 328049.6356
LHD2 7.512878238 7.326304932 122653.4263 54214.43004
MCY 3.794715687 143680.6365
MDV 3.326210975 181.7026156 97267.43592 3809022.188
MH 0.622461141 2.866713014 6211.768507 14169.27164
Motor Coach 1.242915546 8193.361201
PTO 2.956374635 15698.62652
OBUS 3.176153125 15359.19986
SBUS 4.170902049 0.523868083 33718.66982 5008.773596
T6 Ag 0.077794751 705.6481452
T6 CAIRP heavy 2.593973996 31005.10848
T6 CAIRP small 0.389535003 4322.783547
T6 instate construction heavy 4.543240545 39218.93407
T6 instate construction small 14.56421982 126688.4133
T6 instate heavy 22.48756282 237641.0701
T6 instate small 21.98588483 225293.5021
T6 OOS heavy 1.485036684 17750.27577
T6 OOS small 0.227964362 2529.565597
T6 Public 0.986218788 7149.576938
T6 utility 0.19980405 1900.274661
T6TS 10.61038415 52657.23318
T7 Ag 0.136000842 779.2144455
T7 CAIRP 69.73559899 496862.8072
T7 CAIRP construction 4.588607494 28171.30103
T7 NNOOS 80.28359769 605688.7556
T7 NOOS 28.10204099 195220.4321
T7 other port 1.52969966 9597.249321
T7 POAK 6.400526281 38512.6651
T7 POLA 6.544852952 39183.41458
T7 Public 3.075711476 17854.48637
T7 Single 11.65237111 79061.42106
T7 single construction 12.08867801 69887.81629
T7 SWCV 6.56228167 16590.21883
T7 tractor 91.77018771 728714.881
T7 tractor construction 10.04099575 57651.29546
T7 utility 0.123195856 740.5479684
T7IS 0.117344581 497.0627275
UBUS 0.339261118 1.552571801 2534.80145 7049.497546
Total 445.702121 921.8719977 3895426.777 25287018.42 29182445.19 Percent of Total 13.35% 86.65%
Miles/Gallon 8.739978101 27.43007541
Gallons/Mile 0.114416763 0.036456334
VMT = Vehicle miles traveled
Fuel consumption and VMT based on Fresno County.
*Fuel consumptions derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) for year 2024 conditons. **VMT derived from EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) for year 2024 conditons.

Fuel Consumption (1000
Gallons/Day)* VMT (Miles/Day)**
Operational Water Energy Use

WATER ENERGY USE
Mgal/Yr INDOOR OUTDOOR INDOOR OUTDOOR TOTAL
ANNUAL INDOOR WATER USE 3.04 3,500 10,644
ANNUAL OUTDOOR WATER USE 4.76 3,500 16,648
BTU/kWh** 3,412
*Based on estimated water use derived from CalEEMod. BTU: 93,118,223 **Energy coefficient derived from US EIA. MMBTU: 93
Mgal = Million gallons; kWh = Kilowatt hour; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit ANNUAL ELECTRIC USE (kWh/Yr)
27,291
WATER USE* ELECTRIC INTENSITY FACTORS
(kWh/Mgal)
Operational Electricity and Natural Gas Use

ELECTRICITY ENERGY USE
kWh/Yr MWh/Yr BTU/kWh* BTU MMBTU
Junior College 708,040
Electricity 708,040 708 3,412 2,415,832,480 2,416
kWh = Kilowatt hour; MWh = Megawatt hour; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million british thermal unit *Energy coefficient derived from U.S. EIA.

NATURAL GAS ENERGY USE
kBTU/Yr BTU MMBTU
Junior College 1,369,580
Natural Gas 1,369,580 1,369,580,000 1,370
kBTU = Kilo British thermal unit; BTU = British thermal unit; MMBTU = Million British thermal unit *Energy coefficient derived from U.S. EIA.

State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020039018)

Appendix D
Noise and Groundborne Vibration Impact Analysis

NOISE &

GROUNDBORNE

VIBRATION

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

F OR T HE P ROPOSED

S TATE C ENTER C OMMUNITY

C OLLEGE D ISTRICT

F IRST R ESPONDERS

C AMPUS P ROJECT

C OUNTY OF F RESNO , CA

J
UNE 2021

PREPARED FOR:

ODELL PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.
49346 ROAD 426, SUITE 2
OAKHURST, CA 93644

PREPARED BY:

612 12TH STREET, SUITE 201
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
TEL: 805.226.2727

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed project ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Acoustic Fundamentals .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Amplitude ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Frequency ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Addition of Decibels ................................................................................................................................................................ ... 4 Sound Propagation & Attenuation ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Geometric Spreading ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Atmospheric Effects ............................................................................................................................................................... 4 Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features .................................................................................................................. 4 Noise Descriptors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Human Response to Noise ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Effects of Noise on Human Activities .................................................................................................................................... 7 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................................ ..... 8 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Ambient Noise Environment ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................................................ .... 9 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Fresno County General Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance ........................................................................................................................... 11 Groundborne Vibration............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 T
hresholds of Significance ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 14 References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Common Acoustical Descriptors ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3. Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 4. Interior Noise Standards .................................................................................................................................................. 11 Table 5. Summary of Groundborne Vibration Levels and Potential Effects .............................................................................. 13 Table 6. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 15 Table 7. Predicted Increase in Existing Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 8. Predicted Increase in Future Traffic Noise Levels ......................................................................................................... 16 Table 9. Representative Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................................... 18 Table 10. Predicted Groundborne Vibration Levels at Nearby Structures ................................................................................ 19

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Common Noise Levels ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Fresno County Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ............................................................. 10

PPENDICES
Appendix A: Noise Measurement Survey
Appendix B: Operational Noise and Construction Vibration Modeling

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS
ANSI Acoustical National Standards Institute
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dB Decibels
dBA A-Weighted Decibels
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
Hz Hertz
in/sec Inches per Second
Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
ppv Peak Particle Velocity
SCCCD State Center Community College District
SEL Sound-Exposure Level
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 1 INTRODUCTION
This report discusses the existing setting, identifies potential noise and groundborne vibration impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed First Responders Campus Project . Mitigation measures are recommended where the predicted noise and groundborne vibration levels would exceed applicable thresholds of significance.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The State Center Community College District (SCCCD) is proposing to undertake the First Responders Campus Project (project).

Evening courses for EMT training are likely to start at 6:00 p.m. and end by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023.

A site vicinity map is presented in Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, and a site plan is presented in Figure 2, Site Plan.

ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is generally defined as a sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. Sound is mechanical energy transmitted in the form of a wave because of a disturbance or vibration. Sound levels are described in terms of both amplitude and frequency.

Amplitude
Amplitude is defined as the difference between ambient air pressure and the peak pressure of the sound wave. Amplitude is measured in decibels (dB) on a logarithmic scale. For example, a sound source of 65 dB, such as a truck, when joined by another 65 dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength incr eases the sound pressure by 3 dB). Amplitude is interpreted by the ear as corresponding to different degrees of loudness. Laboratory measurements correlate a 10 dB increase in amplitude with a perceived doubling of loudness and establish a 3 dB change in amplitude as the minimum audible difference perceptible to the average person.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 2 Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Source: PEG 2021

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 3 Figure 2. Site Plan
Source: PEG 2021

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 4 Frequency
The frequency of a sound is defined as the number of fluctuations of the pressure wave per second. The unit of frequency is the Hertz (Hz). One Hz equals one cycle per second. The human ear is not equally sensitive to the sound of different frequencies. For instance, the human ear is more sensitive to sound in the higher portion of this range than in the lower, and sound waves below 16 Hz or above 20,000 Hz cannot be heard at all. To approximate the sensitivity of the human ear to changes in frequency, the environmental sound is usually measured in what is referred to as “A -weighted decibels” (dBA). On this scale, the normal range of human hearing extends from about 10 dBA to about 140 dBA (U.S. EPA 1971). Common community noise sources and associated noise levels, in dBA, are depicted in Figure 3.

Addition of Decibels
Because dBs are logarithmic units, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic.

Under the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 -dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the sam e loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces a sound level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB; rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the dB scale, three sources of equal loudness together would produce an increase of 5 dB.

Sound Propagation & Attenuation
Geometric Spreading
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dBs for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path, and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dBs for each doubling of distance from a line source, depending on ground surface characteristics. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water,), no excess ground attenuation is assumed.

For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 decibels per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation for soft surfaces results in an overall attenuation rate of 4.5 dBs per doubling of distance from the source.

Atmospheric Effects
Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) fr om the highway due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects.

Shielding by Natural or Human-Made Features
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in a minimum of 5 dB noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 5 Figure 3. Common Noise Levels
Source: Caltrans 2018

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 6 Noise reductions afforded by building construction can vary depending on construction materials and techniques. Standard construction practices typically provide approximately 15 dBA exterior-to-interior noise reductions for building facades, with windows open, and approximately 20-30 dBA with windows closed. The absorptive characteristics of interior rooms, such as carpeted floors, draperies , and furniture, can result in further reductions in interior noise.

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

Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the sound - pressure level in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000 –8,000 Hz and percei ve sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude with higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies, which is referred to as the “A-weighted” sound level (expressed in units of dBA). The A -weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A -scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems (e.g., B-, C-, and D-scales), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with environmental noise.

The intensity of environmental noise fluctuates over time, and several descriptors of time -averaged noise levels are typically used. For the evaluation of environmental noise, the most commonly used descriptors are equivalent sound level (L
eq), day-night average sound level (Ldn), community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and sound-exposure level (SEL). The energy-equivalent sound level, Leq, is a measure of the average energy content (intensity) of noise over any given period. Many communities use 24 -hour descriptors of noise levels to regulate noise. The day -night average sound level, Ldn, is the 24-hour average of the noise intensity, with a 10-dBA “penalty” added for nighttime noise (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for the greater sensitivity to noise during this period. CNEL, the community equivalent noise level, is similar to Ldn but adds a 5-dBA penalty for evening noise (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) Another descriptor that is commonly discu ssed is the sound -exposure level, expressed as SEL. The SEL describes a receiver’s cumulative noise exposure from a single noise event, which is defined as an acoustical event of short duration (0.5 seconds), such as a backup beeper, the sound of an airplane traveling overhead, or a train whistle. The percentile noise level (L n) descriptor represents the
percent exceeded over a period of time. For instance, L50 represents a noise level exceeding 50 percent of the time. Common noise level descriptors are summarized in Table 1.

Human Response to Noise
The human response to environmental noise is subjective and varies considerably from individual to individual. Noise in the community has often been cited as a health problem, not in terms of actual physiological damage, such as hearing impairment, but in terms of inhibiting general well -being and contributing to undue stress and annoyance. The health effects of noise in the community arise from interference with human activities, including sleep, speech, recreation, and tasks that demand concentration or coordination. Hearing loss can occur at the highest noise intensity levels. When community noise interferes with human activities or contributes to stress, public annoyance with the noise source increases. The acceptability of noise and the threat to public well-being is the basis for land use planning policies preventing exposure to excessive community noise levels.

Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over differing individual experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called “ambient” environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 7 Table 1. Common Acoustical Descriptors
Descriptor Definition
Energy
Equivalent Noise
Level
(Leq)
The mean (average) energy noise level. The instantaneous noise levels during a specific period of time in dBA are converted to relative energy values. From the sum of the relative energy values, an average energy value (in dBA) is calculated.

Minimum Noise
Level (Lmin)
The minimum instantaneous noise level during a specific period of time.

Maximum Noise
Level (Lmax)
The maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period of time.

Percentile Noise
Level (Ln)
The percent exceeded over a period of time. For instance, L 50 represents a noise level exceeding 50 percent of the time.

Day-Night
Average Noise
Level
(DNL or Ldn)
The DNL was first recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U.S.

EPA) in 1974 as a “simple, uniform and appropriate way” of measuring long -term environmental noise. DNL takes into account both the frequency of occurrence and duration of all noise events during a 24-hour period with a 10 dBA “penalty” for noise events that occur between the more noise-sensitive hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In other words, 10 dBA is “added” to noise events that occur in the nighttime hours to account for increased sensitivity to noise during these hours.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level
(CNEL)
The CNEL is similar to the Ldn described above, but with an additional 5 dBA “penalty” added to noise events that occur between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The calculated CNEL is typically approximately 0.5 dBA higher than the calculated Ldn.

Sound Exposure
Level
(SEL)
The level of sound accumulated over a given time interval or event. Technically, the sound exposure level is the level of the time-integrated mean square A-weighted sound for a stated time interval or event, with a reference time of one second.

Regarding increases in A -weighted noise levels, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding this analysis:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived by humans;
• Outside of the laboratory, a change of 3 dB is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in sound level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. An increase of 5 dB is typically considered substantial; • A change of 10 dB is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and would almost certainly cause an adverse change in community response.

Effects of Noise on Human Activities
The extent to which environmental noise is deemed to result in increased levels of annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption varies greatly from individual to individual depending on various factors, including the loudness or suddenness of the noise, the information value of the noise (e.g., aircraft overflights, a child crying, fire alarm), and an individual’s sleep state and sleep habits. Over time, adaptation to noise events and increased levels of noise may also occur. In terms of land use compatibility, environmental noise is often evaluated in terms of the potential for noise events to result in increased levels of annoyance, sleep disruption, or interference with speech communication, activities, and learning. Noise -related effects on human activities are discussed in more detail, as follows:

Speech Communication
For most noise-sensitive land uses, an interior noise level of 45 dB Leq is typically identified for the protection of speech communication to provide for 100-percent intelligibility of speech sounds. Assuming a minimum 20 -

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 8 dB reduction in sound level between outdoors and indoors, with windows closed, this interior noise level of 45 dB Leq would equate to an exterior noise level of 65 dBA Leq. For outdoor voice communication, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA L eq allow normal conversation at distances up to 2 meters with 95 percent sentence intelligibility (U.S. EPA 1974.) Based on this information, speech interference begins to become a problem when steady noise levels reach approximately 60 to 65 dBA.

Annoyance & Sleep Disruption
With regard to potential increases in annoyance, activity interference, and sleep disruption, land use compatibility determinations are typically based on the use of the cumulative noise exposure metrics (i.e., CNEL or L
dn). Perhaps the most comprehensive and widely accepted evaluation of the relationship between noise exposure and the extent of annoyance was originally developed by Theodore J. Schultz in 1978. In 1978 the research findings of Theodore J. Schultz provided support for L dn as the descriptor for environmental noise.

Research conducted by Schultz identified a correlation between the cumulative noise exposure metric and individuals who were highly annoyed by transportation noise. The Sch ultz curve, expressing this correlation, became a basis for noise standards. When expressed graphically, this relationship is typically referred to as the Schultz curve. The Schultz curve indicates that approximately 13 percent of the population is highly annoyed at a noise level of 65 dBA L
dn. It also indicates that the percentage of people describing themselves as being highly annoyed accelerates smoothly between 55 and 70 dBA L dn. A noise level of 65 dBA L dn is a commonly referenced dividing point betwee n lower and higher rates of people describing themselves as being highly annoyed.

The Schultz curve and associated research became the basis for many of the noise criteria subsequently established for federal, state, and local entities. Most federal and st ate California regulations and policies related to transportation noise sources establish a noise level of 65 dBA CNEL/L dn as the basic limit of
acceptable noise exposure for residential and other noise -sensitive land uses. For instance, with respect to aircraft noise, both the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the State of California have identified a noise level of 65 dBA L dn as the dividing point between normally compatible and normally incompatible residential land use generally applied for the determination of land use compatibility. For noise-sensitive land uses exposed to aircraft noise, noise levels in excess of 65 dBA CNEL/L dn are typically considered to result in a potentially significant increase in levels of annoyance.

Allowing for an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 20 dB, an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn would equate to an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL/Ldn. An interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL/Ldn is generally considered sufficient to protect against activ ity interference at most noise -sensitive land uses, including residential dwellings, and would also be sufficient to protect against sleep interference (U.S. EPA 1974.) The cumulative noise exposure metric is currently the only noise metric for which there is a substantial body of research data and regulatory guidance defining the relationship between noise exposure, people’s reactions, and land use compatibility. However, when evaluating environmental noise impacts involving intermittent noise events, such as aircraft overflights and train pass byes, the use of cumulative noise metrics may not provide a thorough understanding of the resultant impact. The general public often finds it difficult to understand the relationship between intermittent noise events and cumulative noise exposure metrics. In such instances, supplemental use of other noise metrics, such as the L eq or maximum sound level ( Lmax)
descriptor, may be helpful as a means of increasing public understanding regarding the relationship between these metrics and the extent of the resultant noise impact.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are also considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels.

Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 9 Nearby existing land uses consist predominantly of residential, agriculture, industrial, commercial, and utility.

The nearest noise -sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the proposed project site include resident ial dwellings, which are located approximately 35 feet west of the western property boundary and 100 feet east of the eastern project boundary along Willow Avenue . The nearest non- noise-sensitive land uses include industrial and commercial business uses, located approximately 100 feet south of the southern property boundary along North Avenue; and utility uses, located approximately 100 feet east of the eastern property boundary along Willow Avenue.

Ambient Noise Environment
To document existing ambient noise levels in the project area, short-term ambient noise measurements were conducted on April 1 , 2021, using a Larson Davis Laboratories, Type I, Model 820 integrating sound -level meter. The meter was calibrated before use and is certified to comply with Acoustical National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications. Measured ambient daytime noise levels are summarized in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix A, Noise Measurement Survey.

Table 2. Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels
Location Monitoring Period
(24-hour time)
Measured Daytime Noise Levels (dBA)
L50/Leq L25 L8 L2 L0/Lmax
ST1: Project site along Willow Avenue. 14:19-14:29 49.3 51.4 53.5 56.6 66.7 ST2: Edge of the roadway of Willow Avenue. 14:30-14:40 52.9 54.8 56.7 59.6 69.5 ST3: Edge of the roadway of Willow Avenue. 14:43-14:53 48.8 50.7 52.6 55.5 65.4 ST4: Edge of the roadway of North Avenue. 14:57-15:07 59.1 62.2 64.3 67.4 77.5 ST5: Edge of the roadway of North Avenue. 15:11-15:21 59.6 62.5 64.4 67.3 77.2 dBA = A-weighted decibel; Leq = Equivalent sound level; ST = Short -term noise measurement Ambient noise measurements were conducted on April 1, 2021, using a Larson Davis Laboratories, Type I, Model 820 integrating sound level meter placed at a height of 5 feet.

Based on the measurements conducted, daytime average-hourly noise levels in the project vicinity ranged from the upper-40s to upper-50s (in dBA L
eq). Ambient noise levels within the project area are predominantly influenced by vehicle traffic on area roadways.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Noise
Fresno County General Plan
The Fresno County General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term framework for the protection of the county’s agricultural, natural, and cultural resources and development in the county (County of Fresno 2000).

Designed to meet State general plan requirements, it outlines policies, standards, and programs and sets out plan proposals to guide day -to-day decisions concerning Fresno County’s future. In regard to noise, the County’s goal is to protect residential and other noise -sensitive uses from exposure to harmful or annoying noise levels; to identify maximum acceptable noise levels compatible with various land use designations , and to develop a policy framework necessary to achieve and maintain a healthful noise environment.

Fresno County’s noise standards for the determination of land use compatibility are shown in Figure 4. As shown, educational land uses, are considered “normally acceptable” within exterior noise environments up to 60 dBA CNEL/L
dn, “conditionally acceptable” up to 65 dBA CNEL/L dn, and “generally unacceptable” at noise levels exceeding 75 dBA CNEL/Ldn.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 10 Figure 4. Fresno County Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Source: County of Fresno 2000

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 11 Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance
The intent of the Fresno County Noise Control Ordinance is “…to protect persons from excessive levels of noise within or near a residence, school, church, hospital or public library and to warn persons of the hazards of excessive noise in places of public entertainment.” Applicable noise standards are identified below (County of Fresno 2021):

Exterior Noise Standards
A. It is unlawful for any person, including an owner, whether through the owner or the owner's agent, lessee, sublessor, sublessee, or occupant, at any location within the unincorporated area of the county, to create any noise, or to allow the creation of any noise, on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the exterior noise level when measured at any affected single- or multiple-family residence, school, hospital, church or public library situation in either t he incorporated or unincorporated area to exceed the noise level standards as set forth in the following table:

Table 3. Exterior Noise Standards
Category Cumulative Number of Minutes in
any One-Hour Time Period
Noise Level Standards, dBA
Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
1 30 (L50) 50 45
2 15 (L25) 55 50
3 5 (L8) 60 55
4 1 (L2) 65 60
5 0 (L0/Lmax) 70 65

B. In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standard shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level.

C. Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dB(A) for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises.

D. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be measured, the noise level measured while the source is in operation shall be compared directly to the noise level standards.

Interior Noise Standards
A. It is unlawful for any person, at any location within the unincorporated area of the county to operate or cause to be operated within a dwelling unit, any source of sound or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured inside a receiving dwelling unit situated in either the incorporated or unincorporated are to exceed the noise level standards as set forth in the following table:

Table 4. Interior Noise Standards
Category Cumulative Number of Minutes in
any One-Hour Time Period
Noise Level Standards, dBA
Daytime
(7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
1 5 (L8) 45 35
2 1 (L2) 50 40
3 0 (L0/Lmax) 55 45

B. In the event the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the applicable standard shall be adjusted to equal the ambient noise level.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 12 C. Each of the noise level standards specified above shall be reduced by five dB(A) for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulse noises.

The County’s noise ordinance limits are stated in terms of the cumulative number of minutes in any one-hour time period that the noise level is allowed to exceed. These standards are typically referred to as the n - percent exceeded level (L n). The L n is the sound pressure level exceeded for n percent o f the time. For instance, the “L50“ represents the sound level not to be exceeded 50 percent of the time or 30 minutes within a one-hour time period. Likewise, a fifteen-minute limitation is expressed as the L25, a five-minute limitation is expressed as the L8, and a one-minute limitation is expressed as the L 2. The L0 represents the noise level not to be exceeded at any time, which is also often referred to as the L max. For most sources, the L 50 is also representative of the energy-equivalent sound level, represented as “Leq”.

Construction noise levels that occur between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday, are exempt from the County’s noise regulations. Operational activities conducted on public or private school grounds are exempt from the County’s noise regulations.

Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration will depend on their sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displaceme nt. Measurements in terms of velocity are expressed as peak particle velocity (ppv) with units of inches per second (in/sec).

There are no federal, state, or local regulatory standards for groundborne vibration. However, the California Department of Transp ortation ( Caltrans) has developed vibration criteria based on potential structural damage risks and human annoyance. Caltrans -recommended criteria for the evaluation of groundborne vibration levels, with regard to structural damage and human annoyance, are summarized in Table 5 . The criteria apply to continuous vibration sources, which include vehicle traffic and most construction activities.

All damage criteria for buildings are in terms of ground motion at the buildings' foundations. No allowance is included for the amplifying effects of structural components (Caltrans 2020).

As indicated in Table 5, the threshold at which there is a risk to normal structures from continuous events is 0.3 in/sec ppv for older residential structures and 0.5 in/sec ppv for newer building construction. With regard to human perception, vibration levels would begin to become distinctly perceptible at levels of 0.04 in/sec ppv for continuous events. Continuous vibration levels are considered potentially annoying for people in buildings at levels of 0.2 in/sec ppv. Fresno County does not have an adopted criteri on pertaining to construction - generated groundborne vibration.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 13 Table 5. Summary of Groundborne Vibration Levels and Potential Effects Vibration Level
(in/sec ppv) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006 - 0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion. Vibrations are unlikely to cause damage of any type.

0.08 Vibrations are readily perceptible.

Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected.

0.1 The level at which continuous vibrations begin to
annoy people.

Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings.

0.2 Vibrations annoying to people in buildings (this
agrees with the levels established for people
standing on bridges and subjected to relatively
short periods of vibrations).

The threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to fragile
buildings.

0.3 - 0.6
Vibrations become distinctly perceptible at 0.04
in/sec ppv and considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people walking on
bridges.

The potential risk of “architectural”
damage may occur at levels above

0.3 in/sec ppv for older residential
structures and above 0.5 in/sec ppv
for newer structures.

in/sec = Inch per second; ppv = Peak particle velocity
The vibration levels are based on ppv in the vertical direction for continuous vibration sources, which includes most constru ction activities.

Source: Caltrans 2020

Impact Analysis
Thresholds of Significance
Criteria for determining the significance of air quality impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Appendix G). According to those guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in the following conditions:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or c) Located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or private -use airport, that exposes people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise are considered “substantial.” As discussed previously in this section, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, an increase of 5 dBA is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of l oudness. For purposes of this analysis, a substantial increase in ambient noise levels would be defined as an increase of 5 dBA, or greater, and considered a significant increase if it would exceed the County’s normally acceptable noise standards for land use compatibility or noise control ordinance.

The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration levels would be considered excessive. For this reason, Caltrans recommended groundborne vibration thresholds were used for the evaluation of impacts based on increased potential for structural damage and human annoyance, as identified in Table 5 . For purposes of this analysis, risks of architectural damage (i.e., minor cracking of plaster walls and ceilings) would be considered potentially significant if construction -generated ground vibration levels at nearby structures would exceed 0.5 in/sec ppv . Ground vibration in excess of 0.2 in/sec ppv would be expected to result in a potential for significant short-term increases in levels of annoyance for occupants of nearby buildings.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 14 Methodology
Construction Impacts
Short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities were analyzed based on typical construction equipment noise levels and distances to the nearest noise -sensitive land use. Noise levels were predicted based on representative off-road equipment noise levels derived from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Road way Construction Noise Model based on average equipment usage rates and assuming a noise-attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source.

Operational Impacts
Roadway Traffic Noise
Traffic noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77- 108) based on California vehicle reference noise levels and traffic data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project. Additional input data included day/night percentages of autos, medium and heavy trucks, vehicle speeds, ground attenuation factors, and roadway widths. The project’s contribution to traffic noise levels along area roadways was determined by comparing the predicted noise levels with and without project-generated traffic. Predicted noise levels were compared to Fresno County’s noise standards for the determination of impact significance.

Non-Transportation Noise
Noise levels associated with vehicle parking areas were calculated in accordance with FHWA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines assuming a reference noise level of 92 dBA SEL. Average-hourly noise levels associated with vehicle parking -related activities were calculated based on the conservative assumption that all parking spaces would be accessed over a one -hour period. Noise levels generated by other on-site noise sources, including on -site building mechanical equipment , were assessed based on the representative manufacturer and measured data obtained from similar sources. Physical training activities would occur during the weekday between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. for the Fire Academy, and between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. for the Police Academy. The use of sirens and an emergency public address (PA) system would occur infrequently. Training simulations for the Fire Academy and Police Academy would occur during the weekday.

Non-transportation noise sources were evaluated in comparison to the County’s L 50 noise standard. For most
sources, the L50 noise metric is also representative of the energy-equivalent sound level, represented as “Leq”.

The L50/Leq noise metrics are, therefore, used interchangeably in this report for comparison to the County’s L50 noise standard. Instantaneous noise sources were also evaluated in comparison to the County’s L 0/Lmax noise standard. Operational noise levels were calculated at the exterior and interior of the nearest noise - sensitive land use. Interior noise levels were calculated based on the predicted exterior noise level and assuming an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 15 dB.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact N-A. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction-Related Noise Levels
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the phase (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, and erection). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Noise levels commonly associated with off-road equipment anticipated to be used during project construction are summarized in Table 6.

As noted in Table 6, instantaneous noise levels generated by individual pieces of off-road equipment typically range from approximately 77 to 90 dBA L
max at 50 feet. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower settings. Based on typical off -road equipment usage rate s,

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 15 average hourly noise levels for individual equipment would be approximately 83 dBA L eq, or less, at 50 feet.

Assuming that multiple pieces of equipment could be operating simultaneously, predicted average -hourly noise levels could reach levels of approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet.

Table 6. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Lmax Leq
Air Compressor 78 74
Backhoe 78 74
Concrete Mixer 79 75
Crane, Mobile 81 73
Dozer 82 78
Grader 85 81
Loader 79 71
Paver 77 74
Roller 80 73
Saw 90 83
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = Maximum sound level; Leq = Equivalent sound level Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model

The nearest noise -sensitive land uses located in the vicinity of the proposed project site include residential dwellings, which are located approximately 35 feet west of the western property boundary . Assuming an average-hourly construction noise level of 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet and that construction activities were to occur at the property boundary, predicted exterior noise levels would be approximately 88 dBA Leq at the nearest residential dwelling . Based on the exterior noise level and assuming an average exterior -to-interior noise reduction of 15 dB, with windows partially open, predicted interior noise levels at the residential dwelling would be approximately 73 dBA Leq. As previously noted, construction noise levels that occur between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday, are exempt from the County’s noise regulations. With regards to residential land uses, activities occurring during the more noise-sensitive nighttime hours are of particular concern given the potential for sleep disruption and increased levels of annoyance for building occupants. For these reasons, this impact would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
N-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction-generated noise levels:
a) Noise-generating construction activities, including equipment maintenance, shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday.
b) Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class rating of 25. c) All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
d) Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. e) Construction staging areas shall be located at the furthest distance possible from nearby residential land uses.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would limit construction activities to less noise -sensitive periods of the day. The use of mufflers would reduce construction equipment noise levels by approximately 10 dBA. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures and given that construction activities would be short-term and intermittent, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 16 Operational Noise Levels
Long-term, permanent increases in ambient noise levels would be primarily associated with potential increases in vehicle traffic on nearby roadways; as well as on-site activities. Noise levels commonly associated with these sources and potential impacts to nearby noise-sensitive land uses are discussed as follows:

Vehicular Roadway Traffic
Predicted existing traffic noise levels, with and without the implementation of the proposed project, are summarized in Table 7. In comparison to existing without project traffic noise levels, the proposed project would result in a predicted increase in traffic noise levels of 1.7 to 3.0 dBA along nearby roadways.

Predicted future cumulative traffic noise levels, with and without the implementation of the proposed project, are summarized in Table 8. In comparison to future cumulative without project traffic noise levels, the proposed project would result in a predicted increase in traffic noise levels of 0.3 to 0.8 dBA along nearby roadways.

As noted earlier in this report, a change in sound level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial increases (i.e., 5 dBA or greater) in existing and future cumulative conditions along nearby roadways. Predicted traffic noise levels are not projected to exceed the County’s noise control ordinance exterior and interior standards at the nearby residential land use (refer to Appendix B). As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 7. Predicted Increase in Existing Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet
from Centerline of Near Travel
Lane (dBA CNEL/Ldn)1 Substantial
Increase?3
Exceeds
County’s
Noise
Standard?4
Significant
Impact?5 Existing
without
Project
Existing
with
Project
Difference2
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 52.0 55.0 3.0 No No No North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 51.0 53.8 2.9 No No No Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 46.9 48.5 1.7 No No No dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community noise equivalent level; L dn = Day-night average sound level

1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77-108), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project.

2. Differences in noise levels reflect the incremental increase attributable to the proposed project.

3. Substantial increase defined as an increase of 5 dB, or greater.

4. Noise-sensitive land uses along evaluated roadway segments would not exceed the Fresno County noise control ordinance standards.

5. A significant increase is defined as a substantial increase in noise levels that would exceed the County's applicable noise standards at nearby land uses.

Table 8. Predicted Increase in Future Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Predicted Noise Level at 50
feet from Centerline of Near
Travel Lane (dBA CNEL/Ldn)1 Substantial
Increase?3
Exceeds
County’s
Noise
Standard?4
Significant
Impact?5 Future
without
Project
Future
with
Project
Difference2
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 57.0 57.8 0.8 No No No North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 56.9 57.3 0.4 No No No Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 52.4 52.7 0.3 No No No dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community noise equivalent level; L dn = Day-night average sound level

1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77-108), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project.

2. Differences in noise levels reflect the incremental increase attributable to the proposed project.

3. Substantial increase defined as an increase of 5 dB, or greater.

4. Noise-sensitive land uses along evaluated roadway segments would not exceed the Fresno County noise control ordinance standards.

5. A significant increase is defined as a substantial increase in noise levels that would exceed the County's applicable noise standards at nearby land uses.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 17 Building Maintenance & Mechanical Equipment
Proposed structures would be anticipated to include the use of building mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units and exhaust fans. The specific building mechanical equipment to be installed and the locations of such equipment have not yet been identified. Building mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning units, exhaust fans) would typically be located within the structures, enclosed, or placed on rooftop areas away from direct public exposure. Exterior air conditioning units and exhaust fans can generate noise levels up to approximately 65 dBA L
eq at 10 feet. Based on these assumptions, predicted exterior noise levels at the nearest residential dwelling (270 feet from the nearest proposed building) would be approximately 36 dBA Leq. Assuming an average exterior -to-interior noise reduction of 15 dBA, predicted interior noise levels would be approximately 21 dBA L eq. Predicted noise levels associated with building mechanical equipment would not exceed the County’s noise control ordinance exterior and interior noise standards at the residential dwelling. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Vehicle Parking Lot
The proposed project may include the construction of a 320-space parking lot (i.e., 270 students and 50 employees). Based on a conservative assumption that all parking spaces would be accessed over a one - hour period, predicted exterior noise levels at the near est residential dwelling (120 feet from the proposed parking lot) would be approximately 46 dBA Leq. Predicted interior noise levels at the residential dwelling would be approximately 31 dBA Leq. Predicted noise levels associated with on-site parking lot activities would not exceed the County’s noise control ordinance exterior and interior noise standard s at the residential dwelling. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Physical Training
The proposed project would include physical training activities during the weekday between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. for the Fire Academy, and between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. for the Police Academy. Associated noise from physical training includes chanting and counting. Elevated human voices typically generate noise levels of approximately 70 to 88 dBA Leq at one foot (Engineering ToolBox 2005). Assuming a very loud voice noise level of 82 dBA Leq at one foot and a maximum of 90 students between the Fire Academy and Police Academy training simultaneously, combined noise levels at 50 feet would be approximately 65 dBA Leq.

Based on this noise level, predicted exterior noise levels at the nearest residential dwelling (650 feet from the proposed track field) would be approximately 42 dBA Leq. Predicted interior noise levels at the residential dwelling would be approximately 27 dBA Leq. Predicted noise levels associated with physical training activities would not exceed the County’s noise control ordinance exterior and interior noise standards at the residential dwelling. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Public Address Systems
The proposed project would include an emergency PA system. Noise from the emergency PA system would occur temporarily and infrequently. Based on representative noise levels from similar sources, the use of PA systems can generate noise levels of approximately 75 to 80 dBA L eq at 45 feet. Based on these noise levels,
predicted noise levels at the nearest residential dwelling ( 400 feet from the center of campus ) would be approximately 61 dBA Leq at the exterior of the nearest residential dwelling. Predicted interior noise levels at the residential dwelling would be approximately 46 dBA Leq. Predicted noise levels associated with the use of an emergency PA system would exceed Fresno County’s noise control ordinance standards at the nearest residential land use. However, emergency PA systems are exempt from the County’s noise control ordinance.

As noted in the County’s Code of Ordinances Chapter 8.40 – Noise Control, noise source exemptions include any mechanical device, apparatus, or equipment used, related to, or connected with emergency activities or emergency work. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Sirens
The proposed project would include noise from sirens. Noise from the sirens would occur v ery infrequently with no set times. Based on representative noise levels from similar sources, the sounding of sirens can generate instantaneous noise levels of 124 dBA L max at 10 feet (Fire Apparatus 2017). Based on these noise levels, predicted noise levels at the nearest residential dwel ling (900 feet from the driving pad ) would be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at the exterior of the nearest residential dwelling. Predicted interior noise levels at the residential dwelling would be approximately 70 dBA Lmax. Predicted noise levels associated with the use

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 18 of sirens would exceed Fresno County’s noise control ordinance standards at the nearest residential land use.

However, noise from sirens would be exempt from the Count’s noise control ordinance. As previously noted, noise source exemptions also include operational activities conducted on public or private school grounds.

As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Training Simulation
The proposed project would utilize training simulation structures. The use of these structures would produce noise during training. The proposed locations of the structures would be setback away from nearby noise - sensitive land uses (700 feet from the nearest residential dwelling). Noise generated during the use of training structures would be primarily associated with occasional conversations and yelling among students. Firearms or simulated weapons fire would not be used. As previously discussed, physical training would not exceed the County’s noise control ordinance at 650 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. Therefore, the training simulation 700 feet from the nearest residential dwelling would also not exceed the noise ordinance. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Land Use Compatibility
Based on the traffic noise modeling conducted for this project, predicted onsite exterior noise levels at the nearest proposed buildings would range from approximately 36 dBA CNEL/Ldn to 48 dBA CNEL/Ldn for future project conditions (refer to Appendix B) . Predicted onsite noise levels would not exceed the County’s General Plan “normally acceptable” noise standards for land use compa tibility of 60 dBA CNEL/L dn at the First Responders Campus. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Impact N-B. W ould the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short -term construction activities. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment likely to be required during project construction are summarize d in Table 9 . As depicted, construction-generated vibration levels would range from approximately 0.003 to 0.210 in/sec ppv at 25 feet. The highest vibration levels would be associated with the use of vibratory rollers.

Table 9. Representative Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Level at 25 Feet (in/sec, ppv)
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Small Bulldozers/Tractors 0.003
in/sec = Inch per second; ppv = Peak particle velocity
Source: FTA 2018

The nearest existing structures include residential dwellings, which are located approximately 35 feet west of the western property boundary; industrial and commercial business structures, approximately 100 feet south of the southern property boundary along North Avenue . Predicted groundborne vi bration levels at these nearby structures are summarized in Table 10 . As shown in Table 10, predicted construction vibration levels at nearby structures would not exceed the minimum recommended criteria for structural damage or human annoyance (0.5 in/sec ppv and 0.2 in/sec ppv, respectively). Predicted groundborne vibration levels at the nearest off -site structures associated with construction activities would not exceed commonly applied thresholds for potential structural damage or human annoyance. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 19 Table 10. Predicted Groundborne Vibration Levels at Nearby Structures Nearby Land Use Structures
Distance from
Project
Boundary (feet)
Vibration Level
(in/sec, ppv)
Residential 35 0.145
Industrial 100 0.046
Commercial Business 100 0.046
in/sec = Inch per second; ppv = Peak particle velocity

Impact N-C. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? and for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The nearest airport is the Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which is located approximately 5.2 miles north of the project site. The proposed project is not located within the predicted noise contour zones of the airport.

As a result, the proposed project would not subject on -site employees or students to potentially hazardous noise conditions associated with aircraft operations nor would the implementation of the proposed project affect airport operations. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Noise & Groundborne Vibration Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting State Center Community College District First Responders Campus Project June 2021 20 REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. EIR/EA Annotated Outline.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

County of Fresno. 2000. Fresno County General Plan. Policy Document. Website URL:
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument?id=18117 County of Fresno. 2021. Fresno County Code of Ordinances. Chapter 8.40 – Noise Control. Website URL:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fresno_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH8.40NOCO Engineering ToolBox. 2005. Voice Level at Distance. Website URL: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/voice-level- d_938.html
Fire Apparatus & Emergency Equipment. 2017. Siren Limitation Training. Website URL:
https://www.fireapparatusmagazine.com/fire-apparatus/siren-limitation-training/#gref Peters Engineering Group (PEG). 2021. Traffic Impact Study. Proposed First Responders Campus.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1974. Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

APPENDIX A

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY

1 OF 3
CLOUD COVER BY CLASS (OC=OVERCAST): 3 (1. HEAVY OC, 2. LIGHT OC, 3. SUNNY, 4. CLEAR NIGHT, 5. OC NIGHT) MET. METER:

CALIBRATOR: S/N:

NO
YES
LOCATION DATE TIME (24 Hour)
1 4/1/2021 14:19 10 Project Site
2 4/1/2021 14:30 10 Edge of Roadway
3 4/1/2021 14:43 10 Edge of Roadway
4 4/1/2021 14:57 10 Edge of Roadway
5 4/1/2021 15:11 10 Edge of Roadway
LOCATION DATE TIME (24 Hour) MDV HDV
1 4/1/2021 14:19 10 - - -
2 4/1/2021 14:30 10 Northbound/Southbound Willow Avenue 0/1 1/0 3 4/1/2021 14:43 10 Northbound/Southbound Willow Avenue 0/0 0/2 4 4/1/2021 14:57 10 Eastbound/Westbound North Avenue 3/2 6/6 5 4/1/2021 15:11 10 Eastbound/Westbound North Avenue 5/6 7/0

MANUALLY VIDEO

IN TRAFFIC RADAR
Traffic 59.6
Traffic 59.1
7/6 45/45
Traffic 48.8

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY FORM
SHEET
DATE: 4/1/2021
PROJECT: Fresno City College New First Responders Center LOCATION: County of Fresno, CA
MONITORING STAFF: Danny L
LOCATION MAP: (Attached on the following sheet.)

NOISE MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS & EQUIPMENT
MET CONDITIONS & MONITORING EQUIPMENT: TEMP: 83 - 85 F | HUMIDITY: 15% | WIND SPEED: 4 MPH | GROUND: DRY Kestrel Model 5500

A-WHT SLOW

NOISE & TRAFFIC MEASUREMENTS
Larson Davis Model CAL 200 S
NOISE MONITORING EQUIPMENT: SOUND LEVEL METER Larson Davis Model 820 Type 1 S/N: S

52.9 Traffic 49.3
Traffic
NOISE MONITORING SETUP: WITHIN 10 FT OF REFLECTIVE SURFACE?: MICROPHONE HEIGHT AGL (FT): 5

MEASUREMENT
DURATION (Minutes)

MEASUREMENT LOCATION PRIMARY NOISE SOURCES NOTED MEASURED NOISE LEVELS LEQ
CALIBRATED PRIOR TO AND UPON COMPLETION OF MEASUREMENTS: METER SETTINGS:

TRAFFIC COUNTS
DURATION (Minutes)

TRAFFIC DIRECTION

VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION
AVG. VEHICLE SPEEDS (mph)
LDV
VEHICLE COUNTS:

VEHICLE SPEEDS:
23/26 50/50
- -
6/10 45/45
32/17 45/45

2 OF 3
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

MONITORING STAFF:

LOCATION MAP:

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY FORM
SHEET
4/1/2021
Fresno City College New First Responders Center
County of Fresno, CA
Danny L

3 OF 3
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOCATION:

MONITORING STAFF:

MEASUREMENT LOCATION 4MEASUREMENT LOCATION 3
MEASUREMENT LOCATION 5

NOISE MEASUREMENT SURVEY FORM
4/1/2021
Fresno City College New First Responders Center
County of Fresno, CA
SITE PHOTO(S): (Refer to data sheets for noise measurement locations) SHEET
Danny L
MEASUREMENT LOCATION 1 MEASUREMENT LOCATION 2

APPENDIX B

OPERATIONAL NOISE AND CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION MODELING
Operational Vehicular Traffic
ADT
Roadway Segment Speed (mph) AHW
Without Project With Project Difference
Existing Conditions
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 323 651 328 45 6
North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 256 494 238 45 6
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 100 146 46 45 6 Cumulative (Year 2040) Conditions
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 1028 1222 194 45 6 North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 1002 1102 100 45 6
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 352 381 29 45 6 ADT = Average daily traffic; mph = Miles per hour; AHW = Active half-width

NOISE LEVEL
CNEL AT 50' FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 52.0 WR WR WR WR
North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 51.0 WR WR WR WR
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 46.9 WR WR WR WR

NOISE LEVEL
CNEL AT 50' FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 55.0 WR WR WR 56
North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 53.8 WR WR WR WR
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 48.5 WR WR WR WR

NOISE LEVEL
CNEL AT 50' FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 57.0 WR WR WR 76
North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 56.9 WR WR WR 75
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 52.4 WR WR WR WR

NOISE LEVEL
CNEL AT 50' FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 57.8 WR WR WR 85
North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 57.3 WR WR WR 80
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 52.7 WR WR WR WR

ROADWAY SEGMENT
Existing without Project Traffic Noise Level and Distance Existing with Project Traffic Noise Level and Distance

DISTANCE (FEET)
CNEL = Community noise equivalent level
CNEL = Community noise equivalent level

ROADWAY SEGMENT
Cumulative (Year 2040) without Project Traffic Noise Level and Distance Cumulative (Year 2040) with Project Traffic Noise Level and Distance

ROADWAY SEGMENT

DISTANCE (FEET)

DISTANCE (FEET)
CNEL = Community noise equivalent level
CNEL = Community noise equivalent level
Existing without
Project Existing with Project
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 52.0 55.0 175 46.8 31.8 North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 51.0 53.8 175 45.6 30.6 Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 46.9 48.5 105 43.7 28.7 Future without
Project Future with Project
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 57.0 57.8 175 49.6 34.6 North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 56.9 57.3 175 49.1 34.1 Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 52.4 52.7 105 47.9 32.9 Future without
Project Future with Project
North Avenue, East of Chestnut Avenue 57.0 57.8 225 48.0 North Avenue, West of Willow Avenue 56.9 57.3 225 47.5
Willow Avenue, North of Chestnut Avenue 52.4 52.7 630 36.2 Predicted Existing Traffic Noise Levels at Residences
Roadway Segment
Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet from
Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA
CNEL/Ldn)1
Distance from
Nearest
Residential
Dwelling (feet)
Predicted
Noise Level at
Exterior of
Residence
(dBA Leq)
Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels at Residences
Roadway Segment
Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet from
Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA
CNEL/Ldn)1 Distance from
Nearest
Residential
Dwelling (feet)
Predicted
Noise Level at
Exterior of
Residence
(dBA Leq)
dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community noise equivalent level; Ldn = Day-night average sound level

1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project.

2. Assumes an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 15 dB, with windows partially open.

Predicted
Noise Level at
Interior of
Residence
(dBA Leq)2
Predicted
Noise Level at
Interior of
Residence
(dBA Leq)2
dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community noise equivalent level; Ldn = Day-night average sound level

1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project.

2. Assumes an average exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 15 dB, with windows partially open. dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = Community noise equivalent level; Ldn = Day-night average sound level

1. Traffic noise levels were calculated using FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), based on data obtained from the traffic analysis prepared for this project.

Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels at Project Site
Roadway Segment
Predicted Noise Level at 50 feet from
Centerline of Near Travel Lane (dBA
CNEL/Ldn)1
Distance from
Nearest
Proposed
Building (feet)
Predicted
Noise Level at
Exterior of
Building (dBA
Leq)

Equipment Distance from Source Refrence in/sec ppv at 25 feet in/sec ppv at Structure Roller 35 0.210 0.145
Large Buldozer 35 0.089 0.061
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 35 0.003 0.002
Loaded Truck 35 0.076 0.052
Equipment Distance from Source Refrence in/sec ppv at 25 feet in/sec ppv at Structure Roller 100 0.210 0.046
Large Buldozer 100 0.089 0.019
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 100 0.003 0.001
Loaded Truck 100 0.076 0.017
Equipment Distance from Source Refrence in/sec ppv at 25 feet in/sec ppv at Structure Roller 100 0.210 0.046
Large Buldozer 100 0.089 0.019
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 100 0.003 0.001
Loaded Truck 100 0.076 0.017
ppv = Peak particle velocity
Construction Vibrations at Residential Structure
Construction Vibrations at Industrial Structure
Construction Vibrations at Commercial Business Structure ppv = Peak particle velocity
ppv = Peak particle velocity

Appendix E
Traffic Impact Study
State Center Community College District
First Responders Campus Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020039018)

TRAFFIC IMPACT S TUDY

Proposed First Responders Campus

Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues

Fresno County, California

Prepared For:

ODELL Planning & Research, Inc.
49346 Road 426, Suite 2
Oakhurst, California 93644

Date:

March 11, 2021
Job No.:
20-020.01

Mr. Scott Odell, AICP March 11, 2021
ODELL Planning & Research, Inc.
49346 Road 426, Suite 2
Oakhurst, California 93644
Subject: Traffic Impact Study
Proposed First Responders Campus
Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues Fresno County, California
Dear Mr. Odell:

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a traffic impact study for the proposed State Center Community C ollege District (SCC CD) First Responders Campus (Project). The Project is located in the County of Fresno and SCCCD is the lead agency. This study focuses on the anticipated effect of vehicle traf fic resulting from the Project and was performed in general conformance with the Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact St udies Within County of Fresno dated August 2012 (County Guidelines) and the State of Cali fornia Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA dated December 2018 (Technical Advisory).

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The SCCCD proposed campus for first responders is to be located on the western half of an approximately 40-acre site northwest of the intersection of Willow and N orth A venues in Fresno C ounty, California. The proposed campus will include a fire academy, police academy, and EMT training in numerous small cohorts moving through the academy programs. Approximately 270 students would be on the campus at any one time, staffed by up to 5 0 employees, including admin istrators, faculty, and support staff. Site access is expected to be from one or more driveways connecting to North A venue, with left turns into the site allowed from eastbound North Avenue.

The police and fire academies are expected to begin daily operations at 7:00 a. m. and finish at approximately 5:00 p.m., although night classes until 10:00 p.m. are possible. Day courses for EMT training are likely to begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Th ursdays. Evening courses for EMT training ar e likely to start at 6:00 p.m. and end by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 2 Construction is planned to occur from late 2021 to the middle of 2023.

A site vicinity map is presented in Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, and a site plan is presented in Figure 2, Site Plan.

3.0 STUDY AREA AND TIME PERIOD
A scoping letter was provided to the County of Fresno , City of Fresno, and Caltrans. T he scoping letter and agency responses are presented in Appendix A. The study locations were determined based on the agency responses.

This report includes analysis of the following intersections:

1. Maple Avenue / North Avenue

2. Chestnut Avenue / North Avenue

3. Willow Avenue / North Avenue.

4. Peach Avenue / North Avenue
The study time periods include the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours determined between 7:00 and 9:00 a .m. and betw een 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. The peak hours are analyzed for the following conditions:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing-Plus-Project Conditions;
• Existing-Plus-Approved-and-Pending-Projects Conditions; • Existing-Plus-Approved-and-Pending-Projects Plus Project Conditions; • Cumulative (Year 2040) No-Project Conditions;
• Cumulative (Year 2040) With-Project Conditions.

4.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
As of the date of this report , neither SCCCD nor the County of Fresno has adopted significance criteria for VMT analyses. The Technical Advisory states, “Of land use projects, residential, office, and retail projects tend to h ave the greatest influence on VMT.” The Technical Advisory also states , “In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those reco mmended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7).”
Although the Technical Advisory does not present recommendations relative to educational facilities, the operation of the Project would more closely resemble an office use than a retail or residential use. Therefore, the following recommended threshold from the Technical Advisory relative to office uses will be applied: “A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact.”

Level of Service Characteristics for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Vehicle Delay (seconds)
A 0-10
B >10-15
C >15-25
D >25-35
E >35-50
F >50

Table 2
Level of Service Characteristics for Signalized Intersections Level of
Service Description Average Vehicle
Delay (seconds)
A Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is very short. <10 B Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is highly favorable or the cycle length is very short. >10-20
C Volume-to-capacity ratio is no greater than 1.0. Progression is favorable or cycle length is moderate. >20-35
D
Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is ineffective or cycle length is long. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
>35-55
E Volume-to-capacity ratio is high but no greater than 1.0. Progression is unfavorable and cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures are frequent. >55-80 F Volume-to-capacity ratio is greater than 1.0. Progression is very poor and cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. >80 Reference for Tables 1 and 2: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016 Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 3

4.2 Level of Service

4.2.A General
The State of California does not recognize traffic congestion and delay as an envir onmental impact per the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA). However, the County of Fresno General Plan and City of Fres no General Plan r equire a minimum LOS D at intersections within the City’s jurisdic tion or within the sphere of influence of th e City of Fresno.

The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, (HCM) defines level o f serv ice (LOS) as, “A quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures that rep resent quality of service, measured on an A -F scale, with LOS A representing the best operating conditi ons from th e traveler’s p erspective and LOS F the worst.” Automobile mode L OS c haracteristics for both un signalized and signalized intersections are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 4

4.2.B County of Fresno
The County Guidelines state the following:

A project is considered to have a significant impact if its traffic, when added to the traffic of the without-project condition, would cause any of the changes in traffic conditions described below.
1) On roadway segments:
a) Cause a r oadway that is operati ng at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the V/C ratio (on a directional peak hour basis) to increase by more than 0.05 on a roadway that is already operating at an unacceptab le LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding V/C ratio increase is greater than 0.05.
2) At signalized intersections:
a) Cause an intersection tha t is operating at an a cceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the average delay to increase by more than 5.0 sec onds at a signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not consi dered an impact unless the corresponding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds.
3) At unsignalized intersections, including all -way stop, minor approach stop, and roundabouts:
a) Cause a movement or approach that is operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the average delay to increas e by more than 5.0 seconds on a movement or approach that is operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considere d an impact unless the cor responding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds.
4) On roadways with traveled way width of less than 18 feet (essentially one-lane roadways assuming a minimum of 8 feet per travel direction for vehicle width and edge-of-traveled- way clearance, plus 2 feet clearance between vehicles traveling in opposite directions.) a) Cause a roadway that already carries 100 vehicles per day (vpd) or less to carry more than 100 vpd; OR
b) Cause a roadway that already carries more than 100 vp d to carry any additional traffic.

The County Guidelines also contain the following statement: “Although queuing is no t included as a signif icance criterion, the TIS shall include a queuing analysis when

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 5 appropriate, particularly (but not limited to) left-turn pockets at signalized intersections.

The TIS shall include recommendations to correct e xcessive queuing, blocking, operational problems, or storage deficiencies related to queuing.”

4.2.C City of Fresno
The City of Fresno General Plan includes the following policies pertaining to vehicular LOS that are relevant to the proposed Project:

MT-1-k Multi-Modal Level of Service Standards . Develop and use a tiered system of flexible, multi -modal Level of Serv ice standards for streets designated by the Circulation Diagram (Figure MT-1). Strive to accommodate a peak hour vehicle LOS of D or better on street segments and at intersections, except where Policies MT-1-m through MT -1-p provide greater specificity. Establish minimum acceptable service levels for o ther modes and use them in the development and environmental review process.

MT-1-n Peak Hour Vehicle LOS. Maintain a peak-hour vehicle LOS standard of D or better for all roadway areas outside of identified Activity Center and Bus Rapid Transit Corridor districts, unless the City Traffic Engin eer dete rmines that mitigation to maintain this LOS wo uld be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other General Plan policies.

MT-1-o LOS Deviations Out side of Activity Centers and Areas Designated for Mixed- Use. Accept vehicl e LOS E or F c onditions out side of identified mu lti-modal districts only if provisions commensurate with the level of impa ct and approved by the City Traffic Engineer are made to su fficiently improve the overall transportation sys tem and/or promote non-vehicular transpo rtation as part of a development project or City-initiated project.

MT-2-i Transportation Impact Studies. Require a Transportation Impact Study (currently named Traffic Impact Study) to assess the impacts of new development projects on existi ng and planned streets for projects meeting one or more of the following criteria, unless it is determined by the City Traffic Engineer that the project site and surrounding area al ready has appropriate multi -modal infrastructure improvements:
• When a project includes a General Plan amendment that changes the General Plan Land Use Designation.
• When the project will substantial ly change the off-site transportation system (auto, transit, bike or pedestrian) or connection to the system , as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
• Transportation impact criteria are tiered based on a project’s location within the City’s Sphere of Influence. This is to assist with areas being incentivized for development. The four zones, as defined on Fi gure MT-4, are listed below. The following criteria apply:
o Traffic Impact Zone I (TIZ-I): TIZ-I represents the Dow ntown Planning Area. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of F or better for all

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 6 intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required f or all development project ed to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone II (TIZ-II): TIZ-II generally represents areas of the City currently built up and wanting to encourage infill development.

Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS wil l be required for al l development projecte d to generate 200 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.
o Traffic Impact Zone III (TIZ-III): TIZ-III generally represents areas near or outsid e the City Limits but with in the SOI as of Decem ber 3 1, 2012.

Maintain a peak hour LOS standa rd of D or better for all intersections and roadway segments. A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 100 or more peak hour new vehicle trips. o Traffic Impact Zone IV (TIZ -IV): TIZ-IV represents the southern employment areas within and planned by the City. Maintain a peak hour LOS standard of E or better for all intersections and roadway segments.

A TIS will be required for all development projected to generate 2 00 or more peak hour new vehicle trips.

The proposed Project site and the study intersections are located in TIZ-IV.

4.2.D Level of Service Criteria
The City of Fresno sphere of influence boundary runs along North Avenue east of G olden State Boulevard. Co nsidering the current preference to annex an entire roadway to the City rather than annexing to the centerline, the Project site and the study locations are considered to be located within the sphere of influence of the City of Fr esno. T he City of Fresno would typically allow LOS E within TIZ -IV and the C ounty of Fresno would typically require LOS D in accordance with the County General Plan. For purposes of this study, LOS D will be considered the t arget LOS unless the requ ired improvements to accomplish LOS D are considered infeasible.

5.0 PLANNING AND FUNDING

5.1 County of Fresno General Plan
The County of Fresno General Plan designates the roadways in the study area as follows:
• North Avenue: Arterial
• Maple Avenue (north of North Avenue): Collector
• Chestnut Avenue: Arterial
• Willow Avenue (north of North Avenue): Collector
• Peach Avenue: Arterial

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 7

5.2 City of Fresno General Plan
The City of Fre sno General Plan designation the Project site for heavy industrial uses. The City of Fresno General Plan designates the roadways in the study area as follows:
• North Avenue: Arterial
• Maple Avenue (north of North Avenue): Collector
• Chestnut Avenue (north of North Avenue): Arterial
• Willow Avenue (north of North Avenue): Collector
• Peach Avenue (north of North Avenue): Arterial

5.3 Traffic Signal Mitigation and Major Street Impact Fees The County of Fresno does not have a transportation impact fee program.

The City of Fresno Traffic Signal Mitigation Impact (TSMI) fee program and the Fres no Major Street Impact (FM SI) fee program provide funds for construction of specified traffic signals and major street segments.

The TSMI fee program (September 2016) includes the following study intersections:
• Maple and North Avenues: 100-percent fundi ng of six-phase operations with intelligent transportation systems (ITS) at an amount of $372,000. • Willow and North Avenues: 100-percent funding of eight-phase operations with ITS at an amount of $404,000.
• Peach and North Avenues: 100-percent funding of eight-phase operations with ITS at an amount of $404,000.

The Project site is located within a new g rowth area with respect to the 2016 FMSI fee program.

5.4 Measure C
In 1986, the voters of Fresno County approved Measure C, which created a half-cent sales tax for 20 years to pr ovide a source of funds for specified transportation improvement projects within Fresno County. Money generated through the Measure C program is used for various improvements to extend freeways, improve roads, and enhance public safety. In its first 20 y ears (1986 to 2006) Measure C funded over $1 billion of improvements. In 2006, the voters approved the extension of Mea sure C from 2007 to 2027, and it is projected to generate $1.7 billion over its 20 -year life. Measure C authorizes the establishment of a Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) program to provide additional funding for regional transportation proje cts th rough new fees charged to de velopment projects. The RTMF program was enacted b y the County of Fresno and a ll cities within the Co unty and became effective on Ja nuary 1, 2009. The program is administe red by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that was formed for the spe cific purpose of managing the fee program. In accordance with State law, a nexus study was completed that analyzed the growth of travel demand for eac h jurisdiction, identified regional road improvements to meet such demands, described the appropriate “nexus” between such demand and improvements, and adopted appropriate mitigation fees applicable to various land use categories. As of M arch 1, 2020,

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 8 government facilities and accredited public education facilities are exempt from the RTMF fee. The fee for heavy industrial development is $0.18 per square foot of building area.

8.0 LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
The existing lane configurations and intersection control at the study locations are presented in Figure 3, Existing Lane Configurations and Intersection Control. For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the existing lane configurations and intersection control will remain through the year 2040. The intersection of C hestnut and North Avenues is signalized with protected left turns on the northbound and southbound approaches and permissive left turns on the eastbound and westbound approaches.

9.0 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing peak-hour traffic volumes at the study intersections were determined by performing manual turning -movement counts between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a weekday. The traffic count data sheets are presented in Appendix B. The counts were compared with traffic counts obtained at some of the study intersections in 2018 and it was determined that the volumes of some movements are currently greater than the 2018 volumes and some hav e decreased, likely as a result of the COVID-19 p andemic.

Considering that a substantial amount of development has not occurred in the vicinity of the study intersection since 2018, the greater of each movement was utilized. The available 2018 traffic count data sheets are also presented in Appendix B.

The existing peak-hour turning movement vo lumes are presented in Figure 4, Existing Peak- Hour Traffic Volumes. The adjusted existing peak-hour turning movement volumes are presented in Figure 5, Adjusted Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

10.0 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION

10.1 Project Trip Generation
Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engine ers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 10th Edition (TGM) are utilized to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by proposed p rojects. There are no ITE land uses that accur ately reflect the typ e of facility proposed. Table 3 uses ITE Land Use 540, Junior/Co mmunity College with the total building area as the independent variable. This calculation likely underestimates trips since the nature of th e proposed campus does not rely heavily on classroom buildings or the building size.

Table 3
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 540 62,000 sq.
ft. 20.25 1,256 2.07 77:23 99 30 129 1.86 50:50 58 58 116 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per 1,000 square feet of building area.

The weekday trip total is combined entering and exiting.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 9 Table 4 uses ITE Land Use 540, Junior/Community C ollege with the number of employees as the independent variable and appears to underestimate the trips that the Project would generate.

Table 4
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 540 50
Employees 14.61 732 1.49 77:23 58 17 75 1.34 50:50 34 34 68 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per employee. The weekday trip total is combined entering and exiting.

A reasonable alternative for purposes of trip generation estimates is to model the campus as a general office building, taking into accoun t the number of students and staff. ITE Land Use 710, General Off ice Building, is utilized in Table 5 to estimate the number of trips that an office building with 320 employees would generate (270 students plus 50 staff = 320).

Table 5
Project Trip Generation Estimate – Based on General Office Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 710
270+50 =
320
Employees
n/a n/a 0.45 88:12 127 17 144 0.47 15:85 23 128 151
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per employee.

Since there is a likelihood that many students and staff would leave the site during the p.m. peak hou r while other st udents and staff are arriving at the same time to attend evening classes, Table 6 has been prepared to account for the anticipated overlap of trips entering and exiting. T he a.m. peak hour val ues presented in Table 5 are assumed to be representative of trips arriving at the site during any given period a nd have been added to the p.m. peak hour values to develop the p.m. values in Table 6 that have been used in the analyses.

Table 6
Project Trip Generation Estimate – Based on General Office and P.M. Overlap Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 710
270+50 =
320
Employees
n/a n/a 0.45 88:12 127 17 144 n/a n/a 150 145 295
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per employee. P.M. peak hour values presented in Table 6 were determined by adding the a.m. and p.m. peak hour values from Table 5.

10.2 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The distribution of project trips was estimated based on the results of a select zone analysis performed by the Fresno Council of Governments (COG) using the most recent travel model

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 10 available at the time. The select zone analysis request and results are presented in Appendix C. The distribution of Project trips to the adja cent road network is presented in Figure 6, Pe ak-Hour Project Traff ic D istribution. The peak-hour Project traffic volumes presented in Ta ble 6 were assigned to the adjacent road networ k in accordance with the trip distribution percentages in Figure 6. Peak-hour Project trips are presented in Figure 7, Peak- Hour Project Traffic Volumes.

Caltrans requested a trip trace (estimate of the number of Project trips) at the State Route 99 interchanges at North Avenue and Cedar Avenue. Table 7 presents the trip trace estimates.

Table 7
Project Trip Estimates at Freeway Interchanges
Movement A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
NB SR 99 on ramp from North Avenue 4 36
SB SR 99 off ramp to North Avenue 30 37
EB North Avenue over SR 99 30 37
WB North Avenue over SR 99 0 0
NB SR 99 off ramp to Cedar Avenue 14 18
SB SR 99 on ramp from Cedar Avenue 2 17
NB Cedar Avenue over SR 99 0 0
SB Cedar Avenue over SR 99 2 17

10.3 Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The Project-specific traffic modeling performed by COG indicates a Project VMT of 28.7 miles per emp loyee, which can also be reasonably estimated as the VMT per student. Th e regional (Countywide) average is 25.6 miles per employee. The VMT report provided by COG is presented in Appendix C.

10.4 City of Fresno General Plan Heavy Industrial Trip Generation The Project site is planned for heavy industrial land uses in the City of Fresno General Plan.

Heavy industrial land us es are capable of generat ing either a low volume of trips or a high volume of trips depending upon the specific development, including the potential for a high number of trucks and heavy vehicles . The City of Fresno allows manufacturing, assembly, wholesaling, distribution, storage activities, small-scale commercial services , and ancillary office uses.

For informational purposes, Tab le 8 presents trip generation estima tes for a hypothetical heavy industrial project utilizing ITE L and Use 140, Manufacturing, and assuming a floor area ratio 0.7 (the maximum allowable is 1.5 per Chapter 15, Citywide Development Code, of the City of Fresno Municipal Code dated December 2015) on the western 20 acres of the site.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 11 Table 8
Manufacturing Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 140 609,842 sq.
ft. 3.93 2,398 0.62 77:23 292 87 379 0.67 31:69 127 282 409 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per 1,000 square feet of building area.

The calculations presented in Table 8 suggest that development of the site in accordance with the Heavy Industrial land use and zoning could feasibly result in greater peak-hour traffic volumes than those expected to be generated by the Project.

11.0 EXISTING-PLUS-PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
The existing-plus-Project peak -hour turning movemen t volumes are presented in Figure 8, Existing-Plus-Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

12.0 PENDING PROJECTS
The traffic analyses for the near-term and long-term conditions consider the effects of traffic expected to be generated by pending and approved projects in the study area. The projects listed below are assumed to be operational in the near-term condition. • Rezone M-1 (AA 3815), 2929 South Peach Avenue.
• Rezone to M-1 (AA 3812), North Side of North Avenue East of Willow Avenue • Rezone to M -3 (AA 3829), Southeast of the Intersection of W illow an d Central Avenues

13.0 NEAR-TERM TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Peak-hour existing -plus-pending-and-approved-projects traffic volumes are presented in Figure 9, Near -Term No -Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes. P eak-hour existing -plus- pending-and-approved-projects-plus-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 10, Near-Term With-Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

14.0 CUMULATIVE YEAR 2040 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Cumulative traffic volumes for the year 2040 were determined using the COG travel model and the COG Increment Method. The base year and year 20 35 model traffic outpu t used in the analy ses pre sented in the attached A ppendix C. The year 2035 vo lumes wer e extrapolated to the year 2040. Future turning movements were estimated based on the methods presented in Chapter 8 of the Transportation Research Board National Coope rative Highway Research Program Report 255 entitle d “Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Plannin g and Design.” Cumulative No-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 11, Cumulative (Year 2040) No-Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes. Cumu lative With-Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 12, Cumulativ e (Year 2040) With- Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 12

15.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES
The City of F resno Active Transportation P lan (ATP) dated December 2016 refers to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual for classification of bicycle facilities as follows:
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): Off-street facilities that provide exclusive use for non- motorized travel, including bicyclists and pedestrians. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): On-street faci lities that use striping, ste ncils, and signage to denote preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists. • Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): On-street pavement markings or signage that connect the bicycle roadway net work a long corridors that do not provide enou gh space for dedicated lanes on low-speed and low-volume streets. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeways): Physically separated bicycle fac ilities that are distinct fro m the sidewalk and designed for exclusive use by bicyclists.

Commonly known as “cycle tr acks,” they are located within the street right-of-way, but provide similar comfort when compared to Class I Bikeways.

No bicycle facilities exist at the study locations. Figure 48 of the ATP identifies a proposed bikeway system with Cl ass II bike lanes on all of the streets at the s tudy intersections (with the exception of seg ments south of N orth Ave nue, which are not within the sphere of influence of the City of Fresno). The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing or planned bicycle facilities.

16.0 TRANSIT
Fresno Area Express (FAX) provide s bus service to the Fresno area. F AX Route 41, which serves the Malaga area, is the nearest route to the Project sit e, with stops at approximately 30-minute headways near the Maple/ North A venues intersection and the Chestnut/North Avenues intersection. The walking distance from the Proj ect site to the nearest stop is at least ¼ mile. The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing transit facilities.

17.0 INTERSECTION ANALYSES

17.1 – Traffic Signal Warrants – Existing Conditions
The California Stat e Transportation Agency and Cal ifornia Department of Tr ansportation California Manual on Uniform Traf fic Control Devices, 2014 Edition (Revision 5 effective March 27, 2020) (CMUTCD) presents various criteria (warrants) for dete rmining the need for traffic signals. The CMUTCD states that an engineering study of traffic cond itions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.

The City of Fresno requested investigation of the following tr affic signal wa rrants at the unsignalized study intersections:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume.

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume.

Warrant 3, Peak Hour.

Warrant 7, Crash Experience.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 13 If one or more of the signal w arrants is met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. Ho wever, a signal should not be installed if none or few of the warrants are met since the installation of signals ma y increase delays on th e previously un controlled major street and may contribute to an increase in accidents.

The installation of a traffic s ignal can serve as a feasible improvement when traffic congestion is identified at an uns ignalized intersection and traffic signal warrants are satisfied. If warrants are not satisfied, traffic signals may not be considered as a feasible or appropriate improvement. For cases in which peak hour traffic signal warrants are satisfied, traffic signals are not considered to be the default improvement. Sin ce installation of traffic signals typically includes construction of additional lanes or widening of the intersection, the development of recommen dations for improvements includes consideration of converting a two-way st op to an all-way stop or widening the inters ection to add cap acity while maintaining stop sign control. If the addition of lanes results in ac ceptable levels of service then the ins tallation of traffic signals may be deferred even if peak-hour traffic signal warrants are satisfied.

The CMUTCD indicates that the study should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is su btracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants.

Crash r ecords wer e obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records S ystem (SWITRS) for the years 2015 through 2019. Table 9 summarizes general crash information at the stud y intersections. Although the inters ection of Chestnut and North A venues is already signalized, it is also included in Table 9. The SWITRS crash records are presented in Appendix E.

Table 9
Crash Records Summary – 2015 Through 2019
Intersection
Number of Collisions
Type of Collision Severity Type of Violation Involved
Broadside
Rear End
Head On
Object
Sideswipe
Other
Overturned
Fatal
Injury
Property Damage Only
Traffic Signals and Signs
Right of Way
Unsafe Speed
Other
Improper Turn
Driving Under Influence
Other Motor Vehicle
Fixed Object
Bicycle/Other
Maple /
North 9 2 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 2 7 1 3 3 1 1 0 7 2 0
Chestnut /
North 49 16 10 4 6 7 3 3 0 15 34 8 9 10 12 7 3 36 8 5
Willow /
North 4 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 0
Peach /
North 34 25 1 2 3 0 2 1 0 19 15 6 19 0 3 3 3 28 2 4

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 14 Table 10 summarizes the traffic signal warrant s studies for the existing conditions without corrections for the pandemic. The warrant worksheets are presented in Appendix D.

Table 10
Traffic Signal Warrants Summary – Existing Conditions
Intersection Warrant 1 Warrant 2 Warrant 3 Warrant 7
Maple / North Not met Not met Not met Not met
Willow / North Not met Not met Not met Not met
Peach / North Not met Not met Not met Not met
The results of the warrants analyses indicate that traffic signals are not warranted at the study intersections in the existing condition. The traffic volumes at the intersection of Maple and North Avenues are very near meeting Warrant 1 (seven hours of the eight-hour warrant are met), W arrant 2 (only a few v ehicles short of meeting the fourth hour of the four -hour warrant), and Warrant 3 (several vehicles short of meeting the peak hour warrant). It is very likely that the warrants would all be satisfied in a non-pandemic condition.

17.2 Level of Service and Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrants The levels of service at the study intersections were determined using the computer program Synchro 11, which i s based on HCM procedures for calculating levels of service. The intersection analysis sheets are included in the attached Appendix F. Tables 11 through 16 present the results of the inte rsection analyses and the peak-hour traffic signal warrants analyses. Levels of service worse than the target LOS D are indicated in bold type and are underlined.

Table 11
Intersection LOS Summary – Existing Conditions
Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop 14.3 B No 17.9 C No
Chestnut / North Signals 12.7 B 11.7 B
Willow / North All-way stop 10.3 B No 9.9 A No
Peach / North Two-way stop 15.0 C No 13.0 B No
Table 12
Intersection LOS Summary – Existing-Plus-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop 15.4 C No 23.8 C No
Chestnut / North Signals 13.1 B 13.2 B
Willow / North All-way stop 11.0 B No 10.9 B No
Peach / North Two-way stop 15.8 C No 14.1 B No

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 15 Table 13
Intersection LOS Summary – Near-Term No-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop 15.5 C No 20.4 C No
Chestnut / North Signals 13.0 B 12.1 B
Willow / North All-way stop 11.2 B No 10.6 B No
Peach / North Two-way stop 18.0 C No 13.8 B No
Table 14
Intersection LOS Summary – Near-Term With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop 16.8 C No 28.4 D No
Chestnut / North Signals 13.6 B 14.0 B
Willow / North All-way stop 12.1 B No 12.0 B No
Peach / North Two-way stop 19.1 C No 15.1 C No
Table 15
Intersection LOS Summary – Cumulative 2040 No-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop >300 F Yes >300 F Yes
Chestnut / North Signals 90.0 F 181.2 F
Willow / North All-way stop 21.3 C Yes 47.8 E Yes
Peach / North Two-way stop >300 F Yes >300 F Yes
Table 16
Intersection LOS Summary – Cumulative 2040 With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Delay
(sec) LOS Warrant
Met?
Maple / North Two-way stop >300 F Yes >300 F Yes
Chestnut / North Signals 103.2 F 244.6 F
Willow / North All-way stop 24.6 C Yes 69.0 F Yes
Peach / North Two-way stop >300 F Yes >300 F Yes

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 16

17.3 Queuing
The results of the int ersection operational analyses include an estimate of the 95th-percentile queue lengths at the study intersections. The calculated 95 th-percentile que ue lengths are presented in Tables 17 and 1 8. Calculated queue lengths exceeding the e xisting storage capacity are indicated in bold type and are underlined.

Table 17
Intersection Queuing Summary – A.M. Peak Hour
Intersection Existing
Storage
Capacity
(feet)
95th-Percentile Queue Length (feet)
Approach Existing
Existing-
Plus-
Project
Near-
Term
No-
Project
Near-
Term
With-
Project
2040 No
Project
2040
With
Project
Maple / North
Eastbound L 415 3 3 3 3 8 8
Eastbound TR DNS
Westbound LTR * 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound LTR Driveway 0 0 0 0 3 3
Southbound LTR * 25 30 30 35 440 475
Chestnut / North
Eastbound LTR * 89 120 118 151 991 >1,000
Westbound LTR * 141 147 151 168 350 373
Northbound L 240 67 67 67 67 289 289
Northbound T (2) * 52 52 52 52 237 237
Northbound R Shared
Southbound L 140 42 61 51 76 150 210
Southbound T (2) * 75 75 76 76 365 365
Southbound R Shared
Willow / North
Eastbound LT * 13 15 28 30 168 185
Eastbound R 75+ 8 8 8 8 15 15
Westbound LTR * 58 73 70 88 148 188
Northbound LTR * 10 10 10 13 25 25
Southbound LTR * 8 10 13 15 45 53
Peach / North
Eastbound LTR * 3 3 5 5 13 13
Westbound LTR * 0 0 0 0 3 3
Northbound LTR * 8 8 10 13 653 703
Southbound LTR * 28 33 40 45 X X
* Available storage capacity exceeds 1,000 feet.
+ Additional storage capacity exists beyond the striped lane.

X Queue length exceeds the computational limits. Volume exceeds capacity.

DNS: Does not stop

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 17 Table 18
Intersection Queuing Summary – P.M. Peak Hour
Intersection Existing
Storage
Capacity
(feet)
95th-Percentile Queue Length (feet)
Approach Existing
Existing-
Plus-
Project
Near-
Term
No-
Project
Near-
Term
With-
Project
2040 No
Project
2040
With
Project
Maple / North
Eastbound L 415 3 5 3 5 10 13
Eastbound TR DNS
Westbound LTR * 0 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound LTR Driveway 0 3 0 3 8 8
Southbound LTR * 48 65 53 78 700 748
Chestnut / North
Eastbound LTR * 140 184 148 205 >1,000 >1,000
Westbound LTR * 117 172 157 256 683 869
Northbound L 240 66 66 66 66 632 632
Northbound T (2) * 120 121 122 122 290 291
Northbound R Shared
Southbound L 140 33 57 34 59 73 158
Southbound T (2) * 75 75 76 76 522 522
Southbound R Shared
Willow / North
Eastbound LT * 38 55 45 68 298 403
Eastbound R 75+ 3 3 3 3 10 10
Westbound LTR * 18 25 33 45 310 390
Northbound LTR * 23 25 25 28 128 125
Southbound LTR * 5 8 8 10 40 48
Peach / North
Eastbound LTR * 3 3 3 3 5 5
Westbound LTR * 0 0 0 0 3 3
Northbound LTR * 15 18 18 20 X X
Southbound LTR * 15 18 25 30 X X
* Available storage capacity exceeds 1,000 feet.
+ Additional storage capacity exists beyond the striped lane.

X Queue length exceeds the computational limits. Volume exceeds capacity.

DNS: Does not stop

17.4 Site Driveway Left-Turn Lane Analyses
The need for a left-turn lane on eastbound North Avenue at the site access driveway was analyzed using Volume Warrants for Left -Turn Storage Lanes at Unsign alized Grade Intersections by M.D. Harmelink, Highway Research Record No. 211, Highway Research Board, 1967.

The analyses indicate that a dedicated left-turn lane at the site access driveway is warranted in the near-term condition. The analysis sheets are presented in the attached Appendix G.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 18 When North Avenue is ultimately developed as an arterial with a median, it is recommended that a median break with a dedicated left-turn lane into the site be considered to minimize the need for U turns at the intersection of Willow and North Avenues.

18.0 DISCUSSION OF INTERSECTION ANALYSES

18.1 Existing and Near-Term No-Project Conditions
The intersection a nalyses indicate that the study intersections ar e currently operating at acceptable levels of service with acc eptable queuing cond itions. The intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable conditions after opening of the approved and pending projects.

Traffic signal warrant s are not sat isfied at the study intersections based on the ex isting pandemic traffic volumes. The traffic signal warrants an alyses suggest that the inters ection of Maple and North A venues very ne arly meets traffic signal Warrants 1, 2 , and 3 in the existing condition and would likely meet all three warrants in a non-pandemic condition.

The crash experience warrant (Warrant 7) is almost satisfied at the intersection of Peach and North Avenues. In addition, it is noted that the signalized intersection of Chestnut and North Avenues experiences nearly 10 crashes per year, nearly 75 percent of which are broadsides.

18.2 Existing-Plus-Project and Near-Term With-Project Conditions The intersection analys es indicate that the study intersections are expected to co ntinue to operate at acceptable levels of service with acceptable queuing conditions after opening of the Pr oject in both the existing-plus-Project conditions and the nea r-term with -Project conditions. The refore, the Project does not cause a Project-specific traffic issue or contribute to a cumulative near-term traffic issue at the study intersection s. Peak-hour t raffic signal warrants are not expected to be satisfied at the study intersect ions during the a.m. and p.m . peak hours occurring between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.

18.3 Cumulative (Year 2040) No-Project Conditions
The year 2040 No-Project conditions analyses are based on the assumption that the Proje ct site is vacant and regional growth has o ccurred. T his scena rio estimates the lon g-term cumulative effects without the Project.

By the year 2040 without the Project (assuming the Project site remains vacant), it is anticipated that all four study intersections will operate below the target LOS D and will require improvements to reduce congestion and improve safety. Queues are expected to exceed the storage capacity, or to be excessively long, at all of the study intersections except the intersection of Willow and North Avenues.

18.4 Cumulative (Year 2040) With-Project Conditions
The year 2040 With-Project conditions analyses are based on the assumption that the Project has been opened and regional growth has o ccurred. T his scenario estimates the lon g-term cumulative effects with the Project, the pending projects, and regional growth.

By the year 2040 with the Proje ct, it is anticipated that all four study intersections will operate below the target LOS D and will require improvements to reduce congestion and improve safety. Queues are expected to exceed storage capacities, or to be excessively long,

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 19 at all of the study intersections except the i ntersection of Willow and North A venues.

Recommended improvem ents that are expected to allow the intersections to operate at acceptable LOS are discussed below.

In order to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection of Maple and North Avenues should be signalized and widened. The results of the improved intersection analyses are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Storage lanes should be designed a ccommodate the queue lengths presented in Table 20. The improved intersection analysis sheets are presented in Appendix H. The Project is responsible only for its equitable share of the improvement, and it is noted that the intersection is included in th e City of Fresno TSMI fee program with an estimate of $ 372,000. The following lane configurations are recommended to achieve acceptable LOS:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Westbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; Northbound: one shared left/through/right lane (private driveway); Southbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn.

In order to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection of Chestnut and North Avenues should be widened and eight -phase traffic signal ope rations should be implemented. The results of the improved intersection analyses are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Storage lanes should be designed accommodate the queue lengths presented in Table 20. The improved intersection analysis sheets are presented in Appendix H. The Project is responsible only for its equitable share of the improvement. The following Alternative 1 lane configurations are recommended to achieve acceptable LOS:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; Westbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; Northbound: two left-turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane; Southbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane.

The intersection of Chestnut and No rth Avenues is constr ained by a canal and existing facilities. T herefore, it is suggested that LOS E may be considered acceptable in accordance with the City of Fresno General Plan, since the intersection is within the City of Fresno sphere of influence. It is anticipated that the intersection would operate at LOS E with the following Alternative 2 lane configurations:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Westbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; Northbound: one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane; Southbound: one left-turn lane and two through lanes with a shared right turn.

In order to operate a t acceptable LOS, the intersection of Willow and North Avenues should be signalized and widened. The results of the improved intersection analyses are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Storage lanes should be designed accommodate the queue lengths presented in Table 20. The improved intersection analysis sheets are presented in Appendix H. The Project is responsible only for its equitable share of the improvement, and it is noted that the intersection is inc luded in the City of Fre sno TSMI fee program with an

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 20 estimate of $ 404,000. The following lane configurations are recommended to achieve acceptable LOS:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane; Westbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Northbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Southbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn.

In order to operate at acceptable LOS, the intersection of Peach and North Avenues should be signalized and widened. The results of the improved intersection analyses are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Storage lanes should be designed accommodate the queue lengths presented in Table 20. The improved intersection analysis s heets are presented in Appendix H. The Project is responsible only for its equitable share of the improvement, and it is noted that the intersection is in cluded in the City of Fresno TSMI fee program with an estimate of $ 404,000. The following lane configurations are recommended to achieve acceptable LOS:

Eastbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Westbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Northbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn; Southbound: one left-turn lane and one through lane with a shared right turn.

Table 19
Intersection LOS Summary – Improved Cumulative 2040 With-Project Conditions Intersection Control
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay
(sec) LOS Delay
(sec) LOS
Maple / North Signals 12.5 B 18.8 B
Chestnut / North Signals Alt. 1 25.9 C 38.5 D
Signals Alt. 2 49.8 D 79.2 E
Willow / North Signals 21.1 C 20.8 C
Peach / North Signals 22.1 C 24.7 C

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 21 Table 20
Intersection Queuing Summary – Improved Cumulative 2040 With-Project Conditions Intersection 95th-Percentile Queue Length (feet)
Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Maple / North
Eastbound L 103 128
Eastbound T(R) 597 510
Westbound L 5 13
Westbound T 285 746
Westbound R 24 29
Northbound LT(R) 8 11
Southbound L 108 154
Southbound T(R) 40 40
Chestnut / North (Alt. 1)
Eastbound L 258 293
Eastbound T 394 268
Eastbound R 47 68
Westbound L 139 115
Westbound T 251 458
Westbound R 0 21
Northbound L (2) 93 191
Northbound T (2) 172 185
Northbound R 0 0
Southbound L 146 104
Southbound T (2) 167 204
Southbound R 56 61
Chestnut / North (Alt. 2)
Eastbound L 263 395
Eastbound T(R) 588 910
Westbound L 166 182
Westbound T 249 597
Westbound R 0 53
Northbound L 229 531
Northbound T (2) 170 218
Northbound R 0 15
Southbound L 151 108
Southbound T(2)(R) 285 428
Numbers in parentheses indicate number of lanes if more than one. (L) Indicates left turn shared with through lane.
(R) Indicates right turn shared with through lane.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 22 Table 20 (Continued)
Intersection Queuing Summary – Improved Cumulative 2040 With-Project Conditions Intersection 95th-Percentile Queue Length (feet)
Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Willow / North
Eastbound L 37 132
Eastbound T 253 211
Eastbound R 13 0
Westbound L 159 48
Westbound T(R) 156 345
Northbound L 46 112
Northbound T(R) 40 97
Southbound L 29 29
Southbound T(R) 67 56
Peach / North
Eastbound L 157 85
Eastbound T(R) 170 393
Westbound L 31 47
Westbound T(R) 296 338
Northbound L 31 25
Northbound T(R) 197 193
Southbound L 43 71
Southbound T(R) 143 344
Numbers in parentheses indicate number of lanes if more than one. (L) Indicates left turn shared with through lane.
(R) Indicates right turn shared with through lane.

19.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (VMT)
The Project-specific traffic modeling performed by COG indicates a Project VMT of 28.7 miles per emp loyee, which can also be reasonably estimated as the VMT per student. This value is greater than the regional (Countywide) average of 25.6 miles per em ployee.

Although the P roject could potentially be considered to be exempt from VMT analyses on the basis that it is an educa tional facility and not specifically a residential, office, or retail project, it is mor e conservative to identif y a significant transportation impact and ex plore potential mitigation measures.

The Technical Advisory indicates that potential measures to reduce VMT include, but are not limited to, the items listed below.
• Improve or increase access to transit.
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare. • Incorporate affordable housing into the project.
• Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network.
• Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 23 • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service. • Provide traffic calming.
• Provide bicycle parking.
• Limit or eliminate parking supply.
• Unbundle parking costs.
• Provide parking cash-out programs.
• Implement roadway pricing.
• Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program. • Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. • Provide transit passes.
• Shifting sing le occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-matching services.
• Providing telework options.
• Providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes oth er than single - occupancy vehicle.
• Providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms. • Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. • Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.

The Technical Advi sory indicates that, “…because VMT is la rgely a regional impact, regional VMT-reduction programs may be an appropriate form of mitigation. In lieu fees have been found t o be valid mitigation where there is both a commitment t o pay fees and evidence that mitigation will actually occur.”
Effective mitigation measures will be difficult to implement on a Project level. The refore, it is recommended that SCCCD consider the following to reduce the significant impact, but not completely eliminate it:
• Improve or increase access to transit.
• Incorporate electric vehicle charging stations.
• Provide bicycle parking.
• Provide parking cash-out programs.
• Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. • Provide transit passes.
• Shifting single occupancy vehic le trips to carpooling or vanpooli ng, for example providing ride-matching services.
• Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. • Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 24

20.0 EQUITABLE SHARE CALCULATIONS
Where required cumulative mitigation measures or improvements are not included in a traffic impact fee to be paid by the Project, the Project’s financial responsibil ity for the improvements can be determined based on equitable s hare calculations. The County of Fresno typically uses the following equation to determine a project’s equitable share of the cost of improvements:

BT
TP=
where:

P = The equitable share of the Project’s traffic impact; T = The Project trips generated during the peak hour of the adjacent facility; TB = The forecasted (future with Project) traffic volume on the impacted facility.

Table 21 presents equitable share responsibility cal culations for the 204 0 improvements based on p.m. peak hour trips. These fair shares would not be applicable if the improvement is included in a transportation impact fee paid by the Project.

Table 21
Equitable Share Responsibility Calculations – P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Improvement Project
Trips
2040
Traffic
Equitable
Share
Maple / North Signalize and widen 120 2,112 5.68%
Chestnut / North Widen with eight-phase signals 194 3,378 5.74% Willow / North Signalize and widen 100 1,416 7.06%
Peach / North Signalize and widen 71 1,697 4.18%

21.0 CONCLUSIONS
Generally-accepted traffic engineering principles and methods were employed to estimate the amount of traff ic expected to be generated by the Project, to anal yze the existing traf fic conditions, and to analyze the traffic conditions projected to occur in the future.

The CEQA transportation impact study found that the Project is likely to cause a significant transportation impact based on the Project VMT exceeding the regional average VMT. The Project is not expected to be able to fully mitigate the significant impact; however, potential mitigation measures provided by OPR are listed herein that may be considered in an effort to reduce the significant impact.

The trip generation analyses suggest that the Project will generate approximately 144 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 295 trips during the p.m. pe ak hour (entering and exiting combined). It was found that, if the site were to be developed with industr ial uses in accordance with the C ity of Fresno Gener al Plan l and use designation at the site instead of the Project, the trips generated at the site could be substantially greater than the Project trips.

The traffic analyses indicate that the study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service with acceptable queuing conditions. Traffic signal warrants are not satisfied

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 25 at the study intersections based on the ex isting pandemic traffic volumes. The traffic signal warrants analyses s uggest that the intersection of Maple and North A venues very nearly meets traffic signal Warrants 1, 2 , and 3 in the existing condition and would like ly meet all three warrants in a non-pandemic condition.

The crash experience warrant (Warrant 7) is almost satisfied at the intersection of Peach and North Avenues. I n addition, it is noted that the signalized intersection of Chestnut and North Avenues experiences nearly 10 crashes per year, nearly 75 percent of which are broadsides.

The study intersections a re expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with acceptable queuing conditions after opening of the approved and pending projects (near- term no-Project conditions).

The study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acc eptable levels of service with acc eptable queuing conditions after opening of the Pr oject in both the existing-plus- Project conditions and the near-term with-Project conditions. The refore, the Project does not cause a Project-specific traffic issue or contribute to a cumulative near-term traffic issue based on LOS and queueing at the study intersections.

All four of the study intersections are expected to operate below the target LOS by the year 2040, and the Project will contribute to the cumulative issue. The intersections will require widening and signalization as descr ibed herein. The Project is responsible only for an equitable share of the improvements.

The analyses indicate that a dedicated left-turn lane at the site access driveway is warranted in the near-term condition. When North Avenue is ultimately developed as an arterial with a median, it is recommended that a median break with a dedicated left-turn lane into the site be considered to minimize the need for U turn s at the intersection of W illow a nd North Avenues.

No bicycle facilities exist at the s tudy locations. The City of Fresno has planned Class II bike lanes on all of the streets at the study intersections (with the exception of segments south of North Avenue, which are not within the sphere of influence of the City of Fresno ). The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing or planned bicycle facilities.

Fresno Area Express (FAX) provide s bus service to the Fresno area. FAX Route 41, which serves the Malaga area, is the nearest route to the Project sit e, with stops at approximately 30-minute headways near the Maple/North A venues intersection and the Chestnut/North Avenues intersection. The walking d istance from the Proj ect site to the nearest s top is at least ¼ mile. The Project is not expected to disrupt or impede existing transit facilities.

Traffic Impact Study – Proposed First Responders Campus March 11, 2021 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 26 Thank you for the opportunity to perform this traffic impact study. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland, PE, TE
Attachments: Figures 1 through 12
Appendix A - Scoping Letter and Agen
cy Responses
Appendix B - Traffic Count Data Sheets
Appendix C - Fresno County Travel Model
Appendix D - Traffis Signal Warrants
Appendix E - SWITRS Crash Records
Appendix F - Intersection Analysis Sheets
Appendix G - Left-Turn Lane Analysis
Appendix H - Improved Intersection Analysis Sheets
Appendix I – Sources Referenced

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – PROPOSED FIRST RESPONDERS CAMPUS

FIGURES

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – PROPOSED FIRST RESPONDERS CAMPUS

APPENDIX A

SCOPING LETTER AND AGENCY RESPONSES

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – PROPOSED FIRST RESPONDERS CAMPUS Scoping Letter

Mr. Steve White September 16, 2020
County of Fresno Development Services Division
2220 Tulare Street
Fresno, California 93721
Subject: Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting
Project: Proposed First Responders Campus
Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues Fresno County, California
Dear Mr. White:

Peters Engineering Group has been retained by the State Center Community College District (SCCCD) to perform the required traffic studies for the subject Project. The Project is located in the County of Fresno and SCCCD will be the lead agen cy. The purpose of t his letter is to present the applicable Project information to the C ounty of Fresno and othe r affected agencies , and to request a meeting with County staff and any affected agencies to discuss the scope of the traffic study to be performed for the subject Project.

Project Description
The SCCCD proposed campus for first responders is to be located on approximately 40 acres northwest of the intersection of Willow and North Avenues in Fresno County, California. The proposed campus will include a fire academy, police academy, and EMT training and will serve an aggregate of approximately 4,400 students over a one-year period made up of numerous smaller cohorts moving thro ugh the academy programs. Approximately 270 students would be on the campus at any one time, staffed by up to 50 employees, including administrators, faculty, and support staff.

The facilities are likely to include a total of approximately 62,000 square feet of building area with a spot tower, a scenario vill age, and a virtual-reality/simulation laborat ory, which may include joint use with the City of Fresno and other agencies.

The police and fire academies are expected to begin daily operations at 7:00 a. m. and finish at approximately 5:00 p.m., although night classes until 10:00 p .m. are possible. Day courses for EMT training are likely to begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Evening courses for EMT training ar e likely to start at 6:00 p.m. and end by 10:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Construction is planned to occur from the middle of 2021 to the middle of 2023.

A site vicinity map is presented in Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, and a site plan is presented in Figure 2, Site Plan.
862 Pollasky Avenue ♦ Clovis, California 93612 ♦ (559) 299-1544 ♦ www.peters-engineering.com

Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting, Proposed First Responders Campus September 14, 2020 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 2 Trip Generation
Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engine ers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 10th Edition (TGM) are utilized to estimate the number of trips that will be generated by proposed projects. In our opinion, there are no ITE land uses that accurately reflect the typ e of facility proposed. Land Use 540, Junior/Community College may be similar, however, a review of various trip generation estimates presented in Tables 1A through 1C, and the knowledge that no more than 270 students will be on site at any given time, disqualifies them by inspection as it can be reasonably assumed that the volumes in Tables 1A through 1C are either too great or t oo low.

Table 1A
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 540 4,400
students 1.15 5,060 0.11 81:19 392 92 484 0.11 56:44 271 213 484 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per student. The weekday trip total is combined entering and exiting.

Table 1B uses ITE Land Use 540, Junior/Community College with the total building area as the independent variable. Could underestimate trips since the nature of this campus does not rely as heavily on classroom buildings.

Table 1B
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 540 62,000 sq.
ft. 20.25 1,256 2.07 77:23 99 30 129 1.86 50:50 58 58 116 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per 1,000 square feet of building area.

The weekday trip total is combined entering and exiting.

Table 1C uses ITE Land Use 540, Junior/Community College with the number of employees as the independent variable. Seems to underestimate the trips.

Table 1C
Project Trip Generation Estimate
Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 540 50
Employees 14.61 732 1.49 77:23 58 17 75 1.34 50:50 34 34 68 Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per employee. The weekday trip total is combined entering and exiting.

In our judgment, a good alternative for purposes of trip generations estimates is to model the campus as a general office building, taking into accoun t the number of students and staff. ITE

Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting, Proposed First Responders Campus September 14, 2020 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 3 Land Use 710, General Office Building, is utilized in Table 2 to estimate the number of trips that an office building with 320 employees would generate (270 students plus 50 staff equals 320).

Table 2
Project Trip Generation Estimate – Based on General Office Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 710
270+50 =
320
Employees
n/a n/a 0.45 88:12 127 17 144 0.47 15:85 23 128 151
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates are reported in trips per employee.

The a.m. peak hour values presented in Table 2 are assumed to be representative of trips arriving at the site during any given period a nd have been added to the p.m. peak hour values to develop the p.m. values in Table 3 that are proposed for use in the analyses.

Table 3
Project Trip Generation Estimate – Based on General Office and P.M. Overlap Land Size Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Use Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total 710
270+50 =
320
Employees
n/a n/a 0.45 88:12 127 17 144 n/a n/a 150 145 295
Reference: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017 Rates ar e re ported in trips per employee. P.M. peak hour values presented in Table 3 were determined by adding the a.m. and p.m. peak hour values from Table 2.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The distribution of project trips has been estimated based on the results of a select zone analysis performed by the Fresno Council of Gove rnments (COG) using the most recent travel model .

The select zone analysis request and results are attached. The distribution of Project trips to the adjacent road network is presented in Figure 3, Pe ak-Hour Project Traff ic Distribution. Peak- hour Project trips are presented in Figure 4, Peak-Hour Project Traffic Volumes.

Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting, Proposed First Responders Campus September 14, 2020 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 4 Requirements for Operational Analyses
The document Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies Within County of Fresno dated A ugust 2012 ( County Guidelines) identifies LOS A, B, and C as acceptable at County locations and LOS D, E, a nd F as unacceptable. LOS D is considered acceptable within the spheres of influence of the City of Fresno and the City of Clovis. The County Guidelines state:

A project is considered to have a significant impact if its traffic, when added to the traff ic of the without-project condition, would cause any of the changes in traffic conditions described below. 1) On roadway segments:
a) Cause a roadway that is operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the V/C ratio (on a directional peak hour basis) to increase by more than 0.05 on a roadway that is already operating at an unaccepta ble LOS. It should b e noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding V/C ratio increase is greater than 0.05.
2) At signalized intersections:
a) Cause an in tersection that is o perating at an acceptable LOS to deterior ate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the average delay to increase by more than 5.0 seconds at a signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS. It should be noted that a dec rease from an unacceptable LOS t o a lesser LOS (e. g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds. 3) At unsignalized intersections, including all -way stop, minor approach stop , and roundabouts:
a) Cause a movement or approach that is operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; OR
b) Cause the average delay to increase by more than 5.0 seconds on a movement or approach that is operat ing at an unacceptable LOS. It s hould be noted that a decrease from an unacceptable LOS to a lesser LOS (e.g. from LOS D to LOS E in County areas) is not considered an impact unless the corresponding delay increase is greater than 5.0 seconds.
4) On roadwa ys with trav eled way width of le ss than 18 f eet (essentially o ne-lane roa dways assuming a minimum of 8 feet per travel direction for vehicl e width and edge -of-traveled- way clearance, plus 2 feet clearance between vehicles traveling in opposite directions.) a) Cause a roadway that already carries 100 vehicles per day (vpd) or le ss to carry more than 100 vpd; OR
b) Cause a roadway that already carries more than 100 vpd to carry any additional traffic.

The County Guidelines also contain the following statement: “Although queuing is not included as a si gnificance criterion, the TIS shall include a queuing analysis when appropriate,

Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting, Proposed First Responders Campus September 14, 2020 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 5 particularly (but not limited to) left -turn pockets at signalized intersections. The TIS shall include recommendations to correct excessive queuing, b locking, ope rational pro blems, or storage deficiencies related to queuing.”
The City of Fresno sphere of influence boundary runs along North Avenue. Considering the current preference to annex an entire roadway to the City rather than annexing to the centerline, the Project site and the study locations are considered to be located within the sphere of influence of the City of Fresno and LOS D or better is considered acceptable.

Pending Projects
Peters Engineering Group is req uesting that Fresno County and other affected agencies provide information related to pending and approved projects in the vicinity of the Project site.

Study Area
Peters Engineering Group i s requesting that Fresno County and other affected agencies indicate the study locations required to be analyzed. Based on the anticipated number of Project trips, the following intersections may be considered for analysis:

1. Cedar Avenue / North Avenue

2. Maple Avenue / North Avenue

3. Chestnut Avenue / North Avenue

4. Willow Avenue / North Avenue.

Study Scenarios
Traffic analyses for intersection operations will be performed for the following peak hours:
• Weekday a.m. peak hour between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m.;
• Weekday p.m. peak hour between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.

The peak hours will be analyzed for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions;
• Existing-Plus-Project Conditions;
• Existing Plus Approved and Pending Projects Conditions; • Existing Plus Approved and Pending Projects Plus Project Conditions; • Cumulative (Year 2040) No-Project Conditions;
• Cumulative (Year 2040) With-Project Conditions.

Improvements req uired for the intersections to operate at or bet ter than the target LOS or to alleviate excessive queues will be developed and the levels of service for the improved conditions will also be evaluated. The traffic analysis will include a review of site access as typically required by the County of Fresno.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
SCCCD is the lead agency for this project. The traffic study discussed herein is not intended to address the CEQA transportation impacts , which will be addressed by SCCCD in a separate document.

Request for Traffic Study Scoping Meeting, Proposed First Responders Campus September 14, 2020 Northwest of the Intersection of Willow and North Avenues, Fresno County, California Page 6 Thank yo u for your attention to this request for a scoping me eting. We look forward to the opportunity to work with County staff on this traffic study. Please feel free to call our office if you have any questions.

PETERS ENGINEERING GROUP
John Rowland
Attachments: Figures 1 through 4
Select Zone Analysis Request
Select Zone Analyis Results
cc: Mr. Harman Dhaliwal, City of Fresno
Mr. David Padilla, Caltrans

FIGURES

SELECT ZONE ANALYSIS REQUEST

John Rowland
From: Mike Sharp
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:47 AM
To: John Rowland
Subject: Request for Select Zone Analysis Modeling
Attachments: 1 VIC MAP.pdf; Figure 2 2035 Model Network.pdf Lang,
We need a Future Year 2035 select zone analysis model run and trip length for VMT analysis.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The State Center Community College District (SCCCD) proposed campus for first responders to be located on approximately 40 acres northwest of the intersection of Willow and North Avenues in Fresno County, California. We understand that the proposed campus will generally include a fire academy, police academy, and EMT training and with a capacity of approximately 4,400 students and 40 full-time equivalent faculty. The facilities are likely to include a total of approximately 62,000 square feet of building area with a spot tower, a scenario village, and a virtual reality/simulation laboratory, which may include joint use with the City of Fresno and other agencies. A Site Vicinity Map is attached Figure 1.

Network and Model Changes
Add a New TAZ for a 40 acre university 4,400 students and 40 full-time faculty Connect the new TAZ to Willow Avenue and North Avenue, see attached Figure 2 Remove 40 acres of industrial from existing TAZ 1200
Thank You,
Michael Sharp
Peters Engineering Group
862 Pollasky Avenue
Clovis, California 93612
Phone: (559) 299-1544 Ext. 118
Fax: (559) 299-1722
1 Licensed to Peters Engineering
Chestnut
North
North
Ch
estn
ut
North
North
Chest
nut
Ches
tnut
Chestnut
Ch
estnut
Ch
W
illow
W
illow
North
North
Wi
llow
Wi
llow
Ch
estnu
t
Chest
nut
1270
1291
18841
18845
23365
t
Ches
nut

SELECT ZONE ANALYSIS RESULTS
tt
rrrr
rrrr

Licensed to Peters Engineering
AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Select Zone Analysis 2035 Fresno County Travel Demand Model 22 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 00
00 00
0 0
0 0
00 11
00 00
0 0
00 00
00 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
00 2
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 00
00 0
0 01 0
1 00 00
0 0
0 0
17 1
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
02 1
1 22
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
00 00
0 0
1 2
00 00
350
16 270
93 5333
36123
000
Central
00 Central
000000000nn
CCCent ttral ll
2 0
1 100 0
2 0
1 1
Cedar
Cedar
0 000
000
00 Central
00011
Cent00r00a00
l
00 Central0 CC
0SR 99000
00000R 9R 9
C
0 11e11SSnSRSR
tRRrRR
a99l99
/ 9999
0 0
20000
00 Central
01 Central
12 13
Chestnut
10 10 10 00
0 0
CC
G133o
eessl hheedhheeeCCnSta
00 000000
011
0 Front
Front
00G 000o0
lden
00 Central
0dd0
00 Central
0 0
0 0
Willow
Willow 00
Central
000
Central
0 6
0 0
Peach
Peach
0 0h
0 000
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Parkway
Parkway00
2350 1623
North
North
000
000
SR00990
0 0003
947North/99
0 0
R
0 9
00947SR 99
2 0
1 1
Cedar
Cedar
2 0
1 1
0 0
0 00
0 000
00 00000
00 0 0
22 0
2 0
1 1
Cedar
Cedar
0 000
0 0
0 0
SR 99
0 0
0 0 000
000
0 0
SR99
0 0SR99
9004733
2300500
9 16250 North
North
0o0rrtthhSR 99
0000
000000 22
2 0
1 1
00 0
220022222200
02 0
00 00
100
SRSR
0000
Cedar
C
oorrt00rrrrtttte
66222d
6622SRS 2222a0
33550000SS000055550000000r 00
33550000
9 0
099
0 009900
0 0
0 0
000
0 0
0 0
Cedar
Cedar1
8 38188
23 8
0 04
0 4
1 17
GoldenSta
3 0
4 1
Railroad
Railroad
38C
1 23
8 GoldenSta
GoldenSta
0 0
0 0
0 0SS
Gollddoddeel33d3 nneSSnSSttSaa
ta
Gllddoeelnndnn
eSSnSSttaaS
00 aa
t00a
0 000
0 000Railroad
2379 16350 N
00o00rt 00h
North
237
arr
900
163
11 eedd
5000SStt
N00
or
CCtCChCC
NdeeoennlldnnnnrddnnnneetddeeSSSSh0
ee
1 8
0 0
0 0
GoldenSta
GoldenSta
276deenn10 187SStt
58 North
aa
North
35 20
Gold00e00
nSta
0 0 alwa
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 Cedar
Cedar
01 10
Annadale
Addaannadale
1 0
0 11
2 0
0 Ce 00d00a 22r 22
Cedar
0 000
0 000
01 10
Annadale
Annadale
0nnttrr
0CCee
Central/990
0 0
0 0
000
Gold00e00nSta
0 0GoldenSta
0 0
GoldenSta
0 0GoldenSta
0 0
GoldenSta
0 0GoldenSta
0 0
GoldenSta
1 1
1 2
Maple
M
hh
aple
27711 18960 North
North
1 0
1 2
Maple
M
00 aple
1 0
1 2
0 0
0 0
Front
F00r 11o11n11t
0 0 CChhdhhhheeCChh
0 0dd
Front
Front
00 0
0 2
4 Chestnut
14 1
00 3
2 5
00 0
1144
0 00 00
M0000
uscat
M
uscat
00 00
M
uscat
M
uscat
00 00
M
uscat
M00
uscat
00 00
M
u
cat
M
uscat
2 5
278
11 191
60 North
North
2 25 37052525 26290 NorthNorth
78 57
Chestnut
78 57
Chestnut
2 25
Chestnut
78 57
1 0
1 2
0 0
1 1
Maple
Mapeellleeeee
0 0
1 1
Maple
Maple
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
Mapl
Map
78 57
2 25
Chestnut
2 25
5 212
36 119
Willow
Willow
5 212
36 119
Willow
Willow
5 36
0 0
0 0
Willowuuss
Willow
1101 310
NorthNorth
4726 39
Nortrrh
No336666t6t666h
2 123
0 4
W 66666tt66666666666hhi66tt666666hhllow 66
Willow
21 1
5 1
Peach
Peach
0 6
0 0
Peach
Peach
075 16
North
North
1101 310 Nortrrh
Nortrrh
1 21
1 5
Peach
Peach
P
P
14 1
NN
32626
Ch
rththethths22t22n22u00t 00
0 0SR99
0 0
S 000R00
9229
0rroo
0raall
G CoCeeleenndeenntte 11nSta
0 0GoldenFF
St00a00
0nn0
FFrroo01100
78 57
Chestnut
00 2
5 Chestnut
14 13
Chestnut
2 25
Chestnut
2 5
0 00
0dd0C0SR99
0ee00RRCedar/rr 99
37015 26290 North
North
0 NN990994747SooR4747rrtthh 977h//9999
0 022 0
S0000000000
0000
0000000R00900
00 9
00 212
5 119
36 Will 2233o2233w 3333
Willow

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – PROPOSED FIRST RESPONDERS CAMPUS County of Fresno Response

John Rowland
From: Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:33 PM
To: John Rowland; White, Steven
Cc: Harmanjit Dhaliwal; 'Padilla, Dave@DOT'; 'Scott Odell'; 'George Cummings'; Nakagawa, Wendy; Hensley, Gloria
Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Good Afternoon John,
I appre
ciate the clarification and I agree that perhaps the project description should be altered to reflect this more clearly or omit it entirely so that we can stick with the 270 students plus 50 faculty information. Do oyu know if a planner has already been assigned to this project? I would like to route comments through whoever that person is to keep track of requested changes like this.

Respectfully,
Brian Spaunhurst| Senior Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning | Design Division 2220 Tulare St. 7th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600-4109 Direct: (559) 600-4532
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: John Rowland <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 10:28 AM
To: Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]>; White, Steven <[email protected]> Cc: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>; 'Padilla, Dave@DOT' <[email protected]>; 'Scott Odell' <[email protected]>; 'George Cummings' <[email protected]>; Nakagawa, Wendy <[email protected]>; Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Brian,
The campus will serve an aggregate of approximately 4,400 students over a one-year period in smaller cohorts (classes) moving through the various academy programs. This is not like a traditional community college where there are 4,400 students enrolled taking classes all at one time for an entire year. As I understand it, the way this works is that there will be various smaller groups of students enrolled in the fire academy, police academy, and EMT training, and they would receive training for a portion of the year and then will be replaced by other small groups of students receiving training for a portion of the year. The estimated number of students on campus at any one time would be 270 with 50 faculty and staff. When you add up all the students in the various programs likely served over the year, the total would be approximately 4,400 students, so this I not the total capacity in the traditional sense, just a sum of the number of students served over a one year period. In terms of space, a traditional community college that had capacity for 4,400 students would likely have about 250,000 square feet of building area. In contrast, this specialized facility will have about 62,000 square feet of building area. Perhaps the project description should not mention 4,400 students as it is not meaningful in determining the traffic volumes of the project.

Thanks,
1 John Rowland
Peters Engineering Group
(559) 299-1544 Ext. 112
From: Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 10:34 AM
To: John Rowland <[email protected]>; White, Steven <[email protected]> Cc: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>; 'Padilla, Dave@DOT' <[email protected] >; 'Scott Odell'
<[email protected]>; 'George Cummings' <[email protected]>; Nakagawa, Wendy <[email protected]>; Hensley, Gloria <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Good Morning John,
Please see my attached comments so that we can work our way closer to an agreeable scope.

Wendy, with an anticipated 2 year construction window do you have any concerns regarding pavement impacts? Respectfully,
Brian Spaunhurst| Senior Planner
Department of Public Works and Planning | Design Division 2220 Tulare St. 7th Floor Fresno, CA 93721
Main Office: (559) 600-4109 Direct: (559) 600-4532
Your input matters! Customer Service Survey
From: John Rowland <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 9:00 AM
To: White, Steven <[email protected]>
Cc: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>; 'Padilla, Dave@DOT' <[email protected]>; 'Scott Odell' <[email protected]>; 'George Cummings' <[email protected]>; Spaunhurst, Brian <[email protected]>; Nakagawa, Wendy <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
CAUTION!!! - EXTERNAL EMAIL - THINK BEFORE YOU CLICK
Hello all,
We provided the attached scoping letter with the email below and we heard back from Caltrans in the attached email a couple weeks ago. Just checking to see if we should anticipate any comments from the County or the City in the near future?
Thanks,
John Rowland
Peters Engineering Group
(559) 299-1544 Ext. 112
2 From: John Rowland
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:19 PM
To: White, Steven <[email protected]>
Cc: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>; Padilla, Dave@DOT <[email protected]>; Scott Odell <[email protected]>; George Cummings <[email protected]> Subject: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Hello Steve,
Attached for your review is a letter regarding the scope of the traffic study for the State Center Community College District’s proposed First Responders Campus. We look forward to discussing the project with County staff and will be available to meet once you have had a chance to review. The City of Fresno and Caltrans are copied on this email.

Thanks,
We’ve moved! Please note my new contact information:

John Rowland, PE, TE
Peters Engineering Group
862 Pollasky Avenue
Clovis, California 93612
(559) 299-1544 Ext. 112
3 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY – PROPOSED FIRST RESPONDERS CAMPUS City of Fresno Response

John Rowland
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, January 20 , 2021 12:13 PM
To: John Rowland
Cc: Jill Gormley; Scott Odell
Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Good Afternoon John,
T
hank you for the explanation for Willow Avenue. Based on this information the City would request that Peach/North be added to the Analysis and that Cedar/North be removed.

Thanks,
Harmanjit Dhaliwal, PE
Public Works Department
Traffic Operations & Planning Division
2600 Fresno Street, Room 4064
Fresno, CA 93721
Ph: (559) 621-8694
[email protected]
From: John Rowland <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:38 PM
To: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]>
Cc: Jill Gormley <[email protected]>; Scott Odell <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Hello Harman,
In response to your comment below regarding the distribution, the Project will not have a direct connection to Willow Avenue and will actually be situated toward the western portion of the project site. Right turns out of the site provide a more direct route to Chestnut Avenue. Since Chestnut Avenue in that area is a well developed four-lane road, and Willow Avenue resembles a narrow, two-lane country road, we believe more trips are likely to use Chestnut than Willow.

Please let us know if the City wishes to request analysis of additional intersections not listed in the attached letter.

Thanks,
John Rowland
1 Peters Engineering Group
(559) 299-1544 Ext. 112
From: Harmanjit Dhaliwal <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2020 8:25 AM
To: John Rowland <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Padilla, Dave@DOT' <[email protected]>; 'Scott Odell' <[email protected]>; 'George Cummings' <[email protected]>; Brian Spaunhurst <[email protected]>; Nakagawa, Wendy <[email protected]>; 'White, Steven' <[email protected]>; Jill Gormley <[email protected]>; Andrew Benelli <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Traffic Study - First Responders Campus
Good Morning John,
The City has reviewed the Scope of Work for the subject project. How were the distribution percentages for the trip distribution determined? The City is calculating higher percentages on Willow and from the east on North Ave. Once clarification is provided, the City will determine if any additional intersections will be added to the Scope. Please add the following analysis to the study.
Include Warrant 1 and 2 for existing unsignalized intersections under the existing scenario. Include Warrant 3 for unsignalized study intersections under all study scenarios. Qualitative analysis of bikeways and transit routes in the vicinity of the project. Five-year collision analysis based on SWITRS.
Verify that this project does not need to perform VMT analysis.

Fresno City CouncilSeptember 17, 2026

Fresno City Council
September 17, 2026