La Mesa City Council
March 28, 2023

LA MESA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA

A Regular Meeting

Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023, 6:00 p.m.

Location: City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California
Elected
Officials:

Mayor Mark Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Colin Parent
Councilmember Patricia N. Dillard
Councilmember Laura Lothian
Councilmember Jack Shu
City Treasurer Matthew Strabone
Staff: City Manager Greg Humora
City Attorney Glenn Sabine
City Clerk Megan Wiegelman
The City Council meeting may be viewed in-person or live on Cox Cable Channel 24 (within La Mesa City limits), AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 (in the San Diego Region), the City’s website (www.cityoflamesa.us), Facebook Live (www.facebook.com/lamesaca) or using the following Zoom Webinar options:

The public may view the meeting live using the following remote options:

Teleconference Meeting Webinar
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84472650722
Telephone (Audio only)
(669) 900-6833 or (253) 215-8782 Webinar ID: 844 7265 0722 Copy and paste the webinar link into your internet browser if the webinar link does not work directly from the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
In-Person comments during the meeting: Join us for the City Council meeting at the time and location specified on this agenda to make your comments. Please complete a “Request to Speak” card and submit it to the Council Hostess. When the Mayor calls your name, step to the podium and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes.
•
Zoom Audio Comments: To provide oral public comments during the meeting, join the Zoom meeting by computer, mobile phone, or dial in number. On Zoom video conference by computer or mobile phone, use the “Raise Hand” feature. This will notify the moderator that you wish to speak during a specific item on the agenda or during non-agenda Public Comment. Members of the public will not be shown on video but will be able to speak when called upon. If joining the meeting using the Zoom dial-in number, you may raise your hand by pressing *9. Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. No further comments will be entertained after the Mayor closes public comment. •
How to submit eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published.

Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until 24 hours prior to the meeting. eComments are limited to 500 words. eComments may be viewed by the City Council and members of the public following the close of the eComment submission period (24 hours prior to the meeting). Email your comment to [email protected] if you have difficulty submitting an eComment. eComments will not be read aloud as a regular meeting item; however any member of the Council or member of the public may do so during their respective comment time. •
Citizens who wish to make an audio/visual presentation pertaining to an item on the agenda, or during Public Comments, should contact the City Clerk’s office at 619.667.1120, no later than 12:00 p.m., the Monday prior to the meeting day. Advance notification will ensure compatibility with City equipment and allow Council meeting presentations to progress smoothly and in a consistent and equitable manner. Please note that all presentations/digital materials are considered part of the maximum time limit provided to speakers.

Agenda reports for items on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office, 8130 Allison Avenue, during normal business hours.

ACCESSIBILITY: The City of La Mesa encourages the participation of disabled individuals in the services, activities and programs provided by the City. Individuals with disabilities, who require reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the City Council meetings, should contact the City’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator, Rida Freeman, Director of Administrative Services, 48 hours prior to the meeting at 619.667.1175, fax 619.667.1163, or [email protected].

Hearing assisted devices are available for the hearing impaired. A City staff member is available to provide these devices upon entry to City Council meetings, commission meetings or public hearings held in the City Council Chambers. A photo i.d. or signature will be required to secure a device for the meeting.

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER SHU

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 LIFE SAVING MEDAL AWARDS PRESENTATION

5.2 2023 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WORK PLANS 1
• ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION
• YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
• COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND VETERANS COMMISSION

5.3 CONSIDERATION OF EXISTING BILLBOARD(S) REPLACEMENT

WITH DIGITAL BILLBOARD(S) PROGRAM
7 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
NOTE: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for comment; however, the City Council will not be able to discuss or take any action on the item at this meeting.

If appropriate, the item will be referred to Staff or placed on a future agenda.

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

8.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON

THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
26 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Approve the appointment of John Fonseca to the Community Police Oversight Board as the business community representative and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
This is the time in which members of the Council or audience may pull items from the CONSENT CALENDAR for discussion. Public Comments are also invited on Consent Calendar items.

10. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 10.1 through 10.7)
The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Council or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.

Recommended Motion:

Approve Consent Calendar Items 10.1 through 10.7.

10.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT

OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 2023
30 Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.3 RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY

SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
42 Staff Reference: Ms. Wiegelman
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.4 RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT 2021-24
(COSTCO WHOLESALE)
45 A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WHOLESALE
WAREHOUSE FACILITY AT 8125 FLETCHER PARKWAY, APN 464-
600-26-00 IN THE CM-F-D (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICE/FLOODWAY OVERLAY/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.5 APPROVAL OF THE 2022 ANNUAL REPORT – IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE GENERAL PLAN
413
Staff Reference: Mr. Kusiak
Recommended Motion:

Approve.

10.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM
(SHSGP) GRANT FOR TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS
519
Staff Reference: Chief Koch
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

10.7 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A LEASE

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA MESA AND THE

FOOTHILLS ART ASSOCIATION FOR USE OF THE BUILDING
KNOWN AS PORTER HALL AT 4910 MEMORIAL DRIVE
539
Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:

Adopt Resolution.

11. STAFF REPORT

11.1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING: A) RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY FOR PUBLIC ARTS; B) FEE
STRUCTURE TO FUND PUBLIC ART; AND C) AUTHORIZATION OF

MURALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
568
Staff Reference: Ms. Richardson
Recommended Motion:
(1) Adopt Resolution adopting the Policy for Public Arts; (2) Provide direction to staff to recommend a fee structure to fund public arts as referenced in the draft Policy for Public Arts (Section IV.1.A) for future consideration; and (3) Provide direction regarding the authorization of murals on private property.

12. COUNCIL INITIATED

12.1 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO PROPOSE A DRAFT

POLICY THAT REQUIRES NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO

DECOUPLE PARKING FOR NEW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS

SEEKING ENTITLEMENT - VICE MAYOR PARENT AND

COUNCILMEMBER SHU
580

12.2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A STATE
$25/HOUR MINIMUM WAGE FOR SPECIFIED HEALTHCARE

WORKERS - COUNCILMEMBER DILLARD
582

12.3 ACCELERATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

PLAN TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S VISION ZERO PROGRAM
585

CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORTING THE CITY'S VISION ZERO

PROGRAM BY ACCELERATING THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALLOCATING APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION
OF THE CITY'S ARPA FUNDING. EMPHASIS WILL BE GIVEN TO

REDUCING SPEED LIMITS AND TRAFFIC CALMING SYSTEMS ON

RESIDENTIAL STREETS ESPECIALLY WHERE LOCAL STREETS

HAVE BECOME WELL USED THOROUGHFARES IN THE CITY -

COUNCILMEMBER SHU

13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)

14. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))

15. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

16. ADJOURNMENT
DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lyn Dedmon, Assistant to the City Manager
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: 2023 Boards and Commissions Work Plans
At the start of each calendar year, the City’s Boards and Commissions meet to update their respective Work Plans. The Work Plans provide a roadmap for the major initiatives and projects each commission will work to achieve over the year.

During the Council meetings in February and March, each Chair will present their commission’s updated Work Plan to the City Council. Staff has attached the Work Plans that will be presented at the March 28, 2023, meeting.

Attachments:

A. Arts and Culture Commission
B. Youth Advisory Commission
C. Community Relations and Veterans Commission

ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION
Work Plan
FY2023
Goals should be consistent with the City’s goals:
• Safe Community
• Maintain a Financially Sound and Affordable City Government • Continue to Improve High Quality Municipal Services
• Revitalize Neighborhoods and Corridors
• Enhanced Recreation and Quality of Life Opportunities • Insure Safe and Affordable Homes for All Current and Future Residents • Foster community health by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving environmental quality
Staffing Department: Community Services Department

GOALS DUE DATE TRACKING MILESTONES STATUS

1. Research and recommend
a public art policy.

1. May 2022

2. May 2022

3. Jul 2022

4. Feb 2023

1. Research other agency
policies

2. Review City General Plan and
other City policies

3. Draft plan

4. Recommend policy to City
Council

1. Complete

2. Complete

3. Complete

4. Pending
review

2. Promote, encourage and
increase awareness and
support for the arts

1. Ongoing

2. Ongoing

3. Ongoing

4. Mar 2023

5. Mar 2023

1. Attend and participate in
community events

2. Share information of ongoing
activities with Commission

3. Identify marketing resources
that can raise awareness and
promote arts and culture in
La Mesa

4. Create list of media resources
to help organizations promote
arts and culture

5. Explore social media and
branding to help promote arts
and events

3.Identify art organizations
and locations of public art in
La Mesa

1. Jun 2022

2. Apr 2023

3. Jun 2023

1. List of organizations, artists,
and studios in the La Mesa
area

2. Create online calendar of
events with Park and
Recreation Foundation.

3. Map public visual art
installation locations

1. Complete/
ongoing

4. Make recommendations on
ways to integrate arts and
culture into community life

1. Apr 2022

2. Mar 2023

1. Create survey for general
public

2. Create recommendations
based on survey

1. Complete
Jan 2023

Arts & Culture Commission

4. Research funding
opportunities for the arts
and an art masterplan

1. Ongoing 2. Identify projects

2.87.070 - Mission, duties and functions.
(a) The mission of the arts and culture commission is to promote the arts, along with the historical, aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the community by using the arts as a mechanism to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
(b) The commission shall have the following duties and functions:
(1) Serve in an advisory capacity to the city council on policies relating to public art; (2) Promote, encourage and increase support for the art; (3) Make recommendations on new ways to integrate arts and culture into community life; (4) Plan, participate in, and/or help sponsor events showcasing art throughout the city; (5) Consult and work with community organizations to coordinate activities of the commission.

Youth Advisory Commission
Work Plan
FY2023
Goals should be consistent with the City’s goals:
• Safe Community
• Maintain a Financially Sound and Affordable City Government • Continue to Improve High Quality Municipal Services
• Revitalize Neighborhoods and Corridors
• Enhanced Recreation and Quality of Life Opportunities • Ensure Safe and Affordable Homes for All Current and Future Residents • Foster community health by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving environmental quality
Staffing Department: Community Services Department

GOALS DUE DATE TRACKING

MILESTONES
STATUS

1. Coordinate Power Hour with
La Mesa Spring Valley School
District ESS Program to
introduce one hour of physical
activity to elementary children
Spring 2023 Power Hour will be
offered at various ESS
program sites.

The goal is up to 60
children participating at
each school site.

Power Hour held at
Rolando Elementary
March 27, 2023.

2. “Holiday Cheer” December 2023 To raise funds to provide a gift card to a lowincome family at middle
school level.

3. Host annual spring
educational workshop for high
school students, topic identified
during “Teen Talk” monthly YAC
agenda item
Spring 2023 Partner with
Communities Against
Substance Abuse
(CASA) to provide
workshop on the
dangers of smoking and
vaping.

4. 2020 Vision Time Capsule
and bury 2050 Time Capsule
February 2023
April 2023
Open the 2020 Vision
Time Capsule in front of
the City of La Mesa City
Hall building and create
a new time capsule for
2050.

Opened 2020
capsule on
February 13, 2023.

Gathering items for
new capsule.

La Mesa Municipal Code:

2.71.060 - Mission, duties and functions.

The Youth Advisory Commission shall have the following duties and functions:
(a) The mission of the Youth Advisory Commission is to advise the city council on policy matters pertaining to programs, projects, and issues which address the concerns of youth in the community.
(b) The duties and functions of the commission shall include:
(1) Prepare an annual work program;

Youth Advisory Commission
(2) Participate in, and help sponsor workshops dealing with youth issues; (3) Plan and execute an annual event to promote positive youth awareness in the community;
(4) Provide a forum for discussion by the commission and the community on youth issues;
(5) Consult with other youth groups to best coordinate the activities of the commission with these other groups;
(6) Explore and develop other activities/issues which will promote positive youth relations in the city of La Mesa;
(7) Recommend awards and recognition of individuals or groups.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS & VETERANS COMMISSION
Work Plan
FY2023
Goals should be consistent with the City’s goals:
• Safe Community
• Maintain a Financially Sound and Affordable City Government • Continue to Improve High Quality Municipal Services
• Revitalize Neighborhoods and Corridors
• Enhanced Recreation and Quality of Life Opportunities • Insure Safe and Affordable Homes for All Current and Future Residents Staffing Department: Community Services Department

GOALS DUE DATE TRACKING MILESTONES STATUS

1. Host speakers or events
to educate commission and
public about resources
related to veterans, seniors,
disabled and the community
at large.

Ongoing Host minimum of (4)
presentations February to
December 2023. Track
attendance at meetings.

Disseminate calendar via
social media.

2. Participate in City or
community events.

Ongoing,
throughout year
Volunteer or have a table top
at community events to
increase Commission’s
visibility.

3. Participate in Livable La
Mesa/ Age Friendly
Community Project
Ongoing, as
needed
Assist City with implementing
goals in action plan.

4. Participate in Veteran Day
event
November 2023 Assist with a local Veterans
Day event.

5. Attend meetings in area of
interest at other
organizations and report
back to Commission and
City Council.

Ongoing,
monthly
Members attend meetings
throughout County and share
resources.

6. Recognize La Mesa
citizens, veterans,
organizations and
businesses.

Ongoing
nominations,
monthly/quarterly
recognition
Accept, review and present
Good Neighbor awards.

Recognize military residents.

2.73.070 - Mission, duties and functions.
(a) The mission of the Community Relations and Veterans Commission is to address the needs and concerns of senior adults, the disabled, veterans, and the community-at-large, and develop activities which promote positive community relations in the city of La Mesa. (b) The commission shall have the following duties and functions:
(1) Provide a forum for discussion by the commission and the community on senior adult, disabled, veterans, and human relations issues;
(2) Plan, participate in, and/or help sponsor events dealing with senior adult, the disabled, veterans, and human relations issues, which promote positive relations within the community; and (3) Consult with other community organizations, senior groups, veteran-related associations, and organizations serving the disabled community to best coordinate the activities of the commission.

Clear Channel
Outdoor
Digital Bulletin
Project

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC
With roots dating to 1901, Clear Channel Outdoor
(“Clear Channel” or “CCO”) is the longest-serving multilevel advertising company in Southern California and the U.S. and is largely credited, through its predecessor
companies, with inventing the modern out of home
advertising industry. Today, our global footprint spans 31 countries across Asia, Europe, Latin America and North
America. With more than 500,000 displays under
management, CCO serves over 20,000 advertisers and
sponsors around the world (including those in 43 of the top 50 U.S. DMAs) and continues to expand upon
traditional billboard advertising by packaging unique
combinations of displays across the outdoor and transit marketplace. Clear Channel continues to pioneer the
integration of out-of-home with mobile and social
platforms.

Our digital platform – with more than 1,300 digital billboards across 28 markets in the U.S. and more than 21,000 digital displays in international markets – is the fastest growing in the industry. CCO’s dominant U.S. presence is fortified by the largest network of out-of-home sales offices in the industry. Furthermore, our employees (4,600+ worldwide with 1,500 in the U.S., over 115 of whom work in Southern California market), design, develop, manage and monetize out-of-home media with the creativity, dedication and discipline that brands and advertisers demand.

City of La Mesa and CCO Development Agreement
• Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO) proposes to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of La Mesa regarding the removal, relocation and construction of certain billboard structures

1. 8805 Murray Drive: Build 2 digital faces now

2. 8703 Murray Drive: Build 2 digital faces sometime in the future

3. 8265 Commercial Street: Removal of structure and relocated to 8805 Murray Drive

4. Future removal location: An additional structure will be removed at the time the 8703 Murray Drive location is built (Location TBD)

5. City Owned, golf course sign: Remove and Rebuild new digital sign (No Commercial Ads) • DA provides for an Annual Development Fee Payment of $125,000 per new advertising structure plus a 3% annual increase starting year 2
• DA drafted to include references to the California Outdoor Advertising Act, Business and Professionals Code to provide additional legal protection • All digital faces will be used for Emergency and Community Messaging

Onsite Sign Before Onsite Sign After

CCO Removal Location
8265 Commercial St.

Design Option #1
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Design Option #1
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Design Option #2
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Design Option #2
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Design Option #3
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Design Option #3
Non-Commercial Ads Only

Digital Emergency & Community Messaging

Summary
• The Development Agreement between the City of La Mesa and Clear Channel Outdoor allows the construction two digital billboard structures on the properties located at 8805 Murray Drive and 8703 Murray Drive (Rainbow Properties) • Calls for the removal of an existing structure and a future structure for the second location
• No Net Increase of Outdoor Advertising Structures
• Annual Development Fee Payment of $125,000 per structure with a 3% annual increase starting year 2
• Includes the removal of the City Owned old golf course onsite sign and replacing it with a new digital sign (No Commercial Ads)
• CCO Digital panels come equipped with state of the are technology that automatically controls the illumination at a pre-set level of 0.3 footcandles over ambient light
• All digital panels will be used for Emergency and Community Messaging

DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE

COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
On March 14th, the City Council interviewed an applicant who was interested in being appointed to fill the vacancy for the La Mesa Business Community representative on the City’s Community Police Oversight Board. At the Council meeting on March 28th, the Mayor will make the appointment with the approval of the City Council.

Attached is a brief description of the requirements, the number of openings, and the name of the applicant seeking to be appointed.

Staff recommends the Mayor make the appointment to fill the vacancy, with the approval of the Council, and adopt the attached resolution confirming the appointment.

Attachments

Community Police Oversight Board: 3 positions – two-year term One appointee will fill the position vacated by Greg Ward whose term expires December 31, 2023, and represents the Police Beat 1.

One appointee will fill the vacant Police Beat 3 seat with term expiring December 31, 2023.

One appointee will fill the vacant La Mesa Business Community seat with term expiring December 31, 2024.

Eleven of the members shall be residents of the City of La Mesa and be comprised as follows: One representative from each of the four police beat areas of the City; One representative of a La Mesa faith-based community; One representative of the La Mesa business community; One adult employee or designee of Helix Charter High School; One adult employee or designee of the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District; One young adult between the ages of 18 to 30; One advocate for people experiencing homelessness, substance abuse, mental health or other social issues; and One senior aged 62 or older
First Appointed Terms
John Carlos Fonseca (Business Community applicant)

THE APPLICATION IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPOINTING

A MEMBER TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
WHEREAS, the business community member seat of the City of La Mesa Community Police Oversight Board is vacant; and
WHEREAS, the person below has been recommended to the City Council for appointment to said City of La Mesa Board.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following is hereby appointed as a member of the City of La Mesa Community Police Oversight Board, with their term to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire on the date stated below, or until their successor is appointed and qualified:

Community Police Oversight Board: 1 appointment
John Fonseca is appointed as the La Mesa Business Community representative with term ending December 31, 2024
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28th day of March 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

1 La Mesa City Council
Minutes of a Regular Meeting
Date:

Location:

March 14, 2023, 6:00 pm
City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California

Present: Mayor Arapostathis
Vice Mayor Parent
Councilmember Dillard
Councilmember Lothian
Councilmember Shu
Staff: City Manager Humora
City Attorney Sabine
City Clerk Wiegelman
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda Items can be taken out of order during the meeting.

The Agenda Items were considered in the order presented.

Mayor Arapostathis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

1.1 INVOCATION - COUNCILMEMBER SHU

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
There were no comments.

3. COMMUNITY BULLETIN REPORTS
The Mayor, Council and staff made announcements and reported on various events taking place in the City. No action was taken.

4. ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA

2 There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1 RECOGNITION OF GROSSMONT SECURITY GUARD DAVID

ANTONIO FOR HIS WORK THAT LED TO TWO INDIVIDUALS BEING
CONNECTED WITH THE HOME PROGRAM AND IN TURN LONGTERM HOUSING Mayor Arapostathis presented David Antonio with a Certificate of Recognition.

Bonnie Baranoff submitted a comment thanking and congratulating David Antonio.

5.2 PRESENTATION FROM SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT

SYSTEM (MTS) ON TROLLEY FARE ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS
Al Stiehler, MTS Director of Transit Security and Passenger Safety, provided a PowerPoint presentation on transit security and passenger safety, highlighting the Mission, Vision, and values of MTS, the duties of Code Compliance Inspectors and Transit Security Officers, employee training, the Bus Enforcement Support Team, Bike Team, K-9 Team, Outreach Services Team, and Rider/Experience Details/Passenger Safety Team, Operation Life Saver, the trolley system, and the fare enforcement procedures.

Council questions and comments ensued.

5.3 2023 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WORK PLANS
 PLANNING COMMISSION
 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION
 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
City Manager Humora provided opening comments.

Planning Commission Chair Torpey presented the Commission's 2023 Work Plan.

Community Services Chair Bohan presented the Commission's 2023 Work Plan.

Historic Preservation Chair Pauli presented the Commission's 2023 Work Plan.

3 Following Council questions and comments, no action was taken.

5.4 PROCLAIMING MARCH 21, 2023 AS SPRING EQUINOX NOWRUZ DAY
Councilmember Shu read the proclamation proclaiming March 21, 2023 as Spring Equinox Nowruz Day.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS – (TOTAL TIME – 15 MINUTES)
Dianne Osterling spoke regarding the Historic Preservation Commission's 2023 Work Plan and paradigm shifts.

Janet Castanos spoke regarding the building permit process improvements and working together in a professional and collaborative manner.

Darel Kennedy spoke regarding bee keeping in the City of La Mesa.

7. CONFLICT DISCLOSURES
There were no conflict of interest disclosures.

8. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

8.1 INTERVIEW OF APPLICANT FOR A VACANCY ON THE COMMUNITY

POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD
City Clerk Wiegelman stated John Fonseca was not able to attend the City Council meeting due to a prior commitment but had provided a written statement expressing their interest in being considered for appointment to the Community Police Oversight Board as the business representative.

City Clerk Wiegelman said the appointment would be made at the March 28, 2023, City Council meeting.

9. BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS

9.1 RESOLUTION APPOINTING A MEMBER TO FILL THE

UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
Mayor Arapostathis nominated David Harris for appointment to the Environmental Sustainability Commission as the older adult representative.

Resolution No. 2023-019

4 Approve the appointment of David Harris to the Environmental Sustainability Commission as the older adult representative and adopt Resolution confirming the appointment.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

10. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON CONSENT CALENDAR
Dianne Osterling spoke on Items 11.7 and 11.8.

11. CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 11.1 through 11.9)
*The Ordinance title shall be deemed read if the item is not removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and possible action (Items 11.7 and 11.8).

Councilmember Lothian inquired about Item 11.7.

Approve Consent Calendar Items 11.1 through 11.9.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

11.1 APPROVAL OF MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF THE TEXT OF

ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AT THIS MEETING
Approve.

11.2 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2023
Approve.

11.3 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022-2023, FY 2023- 2024, AND FY 2024-2025 TO ADJUST THE SALARY FOR THE

POSITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER AND BUILDING

OFFICIAL
Resolution No. 2023-020

5 Adopt Resolution.

11.4 COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT BOARD 2022 ANNUAL REPORT Receive and file.

11.5 INDEPENDENT POLICE AUDITOR REPORT FOR THE QUARTER
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2022
Receive and file.

11.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND
APPROPRIATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 BOARD OF STATE

AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS (BSCC) OFFICER WELLNESS AND

MENTAL HEALTH GRANT FUNDS
Resolution No. 2023-021
Adopt Resolution.

11.7 *SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 24 (ZONING) OF THE LA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2, 65852.23, AND 65852.26 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 17980.12
Ordinance No. 2023-2903
Approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.

11.8 *SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF A JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS ORDINANCE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 24 (ZONING) OF THE LA MESA

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (JADUs) IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.2 AND 65852.22 AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 17980.12
Ordinance No. 2023-2904
Approve the second reading and adoption of the Ordinance.

6 11.9 SIXTH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Receive and file.

12. STAFF REPORTS

12.1 TERMINATION OF THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE

CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE LOCAL

EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AS THE
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY AND DISASTER, ON MARCH 13, 2020,

DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC AND RESCINDING THE

CORRESPONDING EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN RESPONSE
THERETO; AND POSSIBLE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF

AND DIRECTION REGARDING THE PANDEMIC RESPONSE STATUS
City Manager Humora explained the purpose for the termination of the local emergency due to the Coronavirus pandemic and reviewed the executive orders and pandemic response status issued during the local emergency. City Manager Humora requested Council direction on whether to return the signal timing of the traffic signals that were reprogrammed to automatically display the pedestrian crossing signals back to their prepandemic status.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Resolution No. 2023-022
Adopt Resolution and direct staff to reevaluate which five traffic signals should automatically display the pedestrian crossing signals and return to Council with a proposal for Council consideration.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

12.2 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE LOCAL

EMERGENCY PROCLAIMED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AS THE
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY AND DISASTER, ON MAY 30, 2020, DUE

TO CIVIL UNREST AND RESCINDING THE CORRESPONDING

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN RESPONSE THERETO

7 City Manager Humora explained the purpose for terminating the local emergency due to civil unrest and reviewed the executive orders issued during the local emergency.

Resolution No. 2023-023
Adopt Resolution.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

12.3 CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN FOR THE CITY OF LA MESA
Engineering Project Manager Kinnard introduced Myles Baidy, Project Engineer - STC Traffic Inc., who provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Local Road Safety Plan ("LRSP"), highlighting the purpose of a LSRP, the Vision and Mission of the LRSP, the citywide collision analysis, the feedback from stakeholders and safety partners, the countermeasure toolbox, the priority projects, and the implementation and evaluation of the LSRP.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Mary Kate Miller submitted a comment regarding the need for traffic mitigation on Lemon Avenue between Jackson Drive and Bancroft Drive.

Resolution No. 2023-024
Direct staff to revisit the analysis used in the Local Road Safety Plan in a manner that prioritizes preventing injuries and death and return to Council with a set of priority projects that are consistent with those goals for Council consideration.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

12.4 CONSIDERATION OF A FIFTY PERCENT COST RECOVERY
REDUCTION POLICY WITH A $50,000 MONETARY CAP OR AN

ALTERNATIVE POLICY FOR A THREE-YEAR OKTOBERFEST

SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION

8 Assistant to the City Manager Dedmon provided a PowerPoint presentation on the City's cost recovery reduction policy for past Oktoberfest events, the 2023-2025 Oktoberfest Special Event Permit application submitted by McFarlane Promotions, Inc. ("McFarlane"), and the accomplishments of McFarlane as they relate to the City of La Mesa.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Approve a fifty percent cost recovery reduction policy with a $50,000 monetary cap for the three-year Oktoberfest Special Event Permit Application.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

13. HEARING

13.1 CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023-2024 AND A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice.

Mayor Arapostathis opened the hearing for Item 13.1.

Associate Planner Kinnard provided a PowerPoint presentation on the CDBG program, the 2020-2025 Consolidated Planning goals, the amendments to the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan, and the proposed funding levels and allocation of CDBG program funds for FY 2023-2024.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Close the hearing.

For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)
Reaffirm CDBG program priorities and direct staff to draft and circulate for public review the FY 2023-2024 CDBG Action Plan and amended FY

9 2022-2023 CDBG Action Plan for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded activities and return to Council on April 25, 2023, for final review and approval
For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

14. COUNCIL INITIATED

14.1 CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST STAFF TO DRAFT A TOBACCO

RETAILER LICENSING (TRL) ORDINANCE - COUNCILMEMBER SHU
Councilmember Shu explained the purpose for requesting staff to draft a TRL Ordinance.

Council questions and comments ensued.

The following members of the public spoke in support of directing staff to draft a TRL Ordinance:

Janet Castanos
Dana Stevens
Lynda Barbour
Chelsea Wallzak Vircks
Yameeka Williams
Council questions and comments continued.

Direct staff to draft a Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance and create an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of Councilmember Dillard and Councilmember Shu to assist staff with the details of the Ordinance.

For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, and Councilmember Shu
Against (1): Councilmember Lothian
Approved (4 to 1)

14.2 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN

NEGOTIATIONS TO ENTER INTO A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT

10 WITH THE BUILDING TRADES AND CARPENTERS UNIONS - VICE

MAYOR PARENT AND COUNCILMEMBER DILLARD
Vice Mayor Parent and Councilmember Dillard explained the purpose for directing the City Manager to begin negotiations to enter into a project labor agreement with the building trades and carpenters unions.

The following members of the public spoke in support of directing the City Manager to begin negotiations to enter into a project labor agreement with the building trades and carpenters unions:

Wendy Mihalic
Sean-Keoni Ellis
Patrick Davidson
Andrea Beth Damsky
Gretchen Newsom
Jesse R. Zendejas
David Zepeda
Matthew Leyba-Gonzalez
Johnny Reyna
Diego Espinoza
Neil Duggan
Tony Sanchez
Dan DuPree
Johnny Galvan
Carol Kim
Adrian Lopez
Kelvin Barrios
Council questions and comments ensued.

Direct the City Manager to begin negotiations to enter into a Project Labor Agreement with the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council with a threshold of $1 million+ for La Mesa public projects, capital improvements, and modernization of City facilities.

11 For (5): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, Councilmember Lothian, and Councilmember Shu
Approved (5 to 0)

14.3 CONSIDERATION OF DIRECTING STAFF TO CREATE A POLICY AND

PROGRAM TO UTILIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENTS AND

TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT FEE REVENUE TO MONITOR

COMPLIANCE WITH AFFORDABILITY DEED RESTRICTIONS - VICE

MAYOR PARENT AND COUNCILMEMBER SHU
Vice Mayor Parent and Councilmember Shu explained the purpose for directing staff to create a policy and program to utilize affordable housing agreements and generate sufficient fee revenue to monitor compliance with affordability deed restrictions.

Council questions and comments ensued.

Vinton Omaleki spoke in support of directing staff to create a policy and program to utilize affordable housing agreements and generate sufficient fee revenue to monitor compliance with affordability deed restrictions.

Council questions and comments continued.

Direct staff to create a policy and program to utilize affordable housing agreements and generate sufficient fee revenue to monitor compliance with affordability deed restrictions.

For (4): Mayor Arapostathis, Vice Mayor Parent, Councilmember Dillard, and Councilmember Shu
Against (1): Councilmember Lothian
Approved (4 to 1)

15. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS (3 MINUTE LIMIT)
The Mayor and Council reported on various outside boards, commissions and committee meetings they attended. No action was taken.

16. AB 1234 REPORTS (GC 53232.3 (d))
There were no reports.

17. CITY ATTORNEY REMARKS

12 There were no remarks.

18. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Arapostathis adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
_________________________
City Clerk

DATE: March 28, 2023
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Megan Wiegelman, CMC, City Clerk
VIA: Greg Humora, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
The Environmental Sustainability elementary/middle school district advisory member seat is vacant. The La Mesa-Spring Valley School (LMSV) District nominated Brianna Coston, LMSV School District Board of Education Board Member, as LMSV District’s representative. This appointment only requires ratification from the Council.

Staff recommends the City Council approve the appointment and adopt the attached Resolution.

Attachments:

A. Resolution
B. LMSV District Nomination Letter

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA MESA APPOINTING

THE LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION
___________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the elementary/middle school advisory member seat of the City of La Mesa Environmental Sustainability Commission is vacant; and
WHEREAS, the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District has recommended the person below to the City Council for appointment to the La Mesa Environmental Sustainability Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, that the following is hereby appointed as a member of the City of La Mesa Environmental Sustainability Commission, with their term to commence after the oath or affirmation of allegiance for public officers or employees is executed as required by Article XX, Section 3 of the Constitution of the State of California, and to expire when their successor is appointed and qualified:

Environmental Sustainability Commission:

Brianna Coston is appointed as the La Mesa-Spring Valley School District representative.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 28th day of March 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, MEGAN WIEGELMAN, City Clerk of the City of La Mesa, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution No. 2023- , duly passed and adopted by the City Council of said City on the date and by the vote therein recited.

MEGAN WIEGELMAN, CMC, City Clerk
(SEAL OF CITY)

March 13, 2023
City of La Mesa
City Council Members
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91942
Re: Environmental Sustainability Commission
Dear City Council Members,
The La Mesa-Spring Valley School District requests that Trustee, Brianna Coston serve as the school district representative on the Environmental Sustainability Commission.

Sincerely,
David Feliciano
Superintendent and Secretary to the Board
La Mesa-Spring Valley School District

REPORT to the MAYOR and MEMBERS of the CITY COUNCIL
From the CITY MANAGER
DATE: March 28, 2023
SUBJECT: RATIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROJECT
2021-24 (COSTCO WHOLESALE)
DESCRIPTION: A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE FACILITY AT 8125
FLETCHER PARKWAY, APN 464-600-26-00 IN THE

CM-F-D (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICE/FLOODWAY OVERLAY/URBAN DESIGN

OVERLAY) ZONE
ISSUING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUMMARY:

Issue:

Does the proposed design meet the intent of the Urban Design Program policies?
Recommendation:

Ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of Project 2021-24 (Attachment A).

Fiscal Impact:

There would be no impact to the General Fund related to this project. The City of La Mesa policy is to recover 100% of the cost of staff time through application processing fees.

City’s Strategic Goals:
 Revitalize neighborhoods and corridors

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 28, 2023
Page: 2 of 6
Environmental Review:

An Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and filed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

BACKGROUND:

Costco Wholesale is located on the south side of Fletcher Parkway between Baltimore Drive and Marengo Avenue. The approximately 133,000-square-foot facility was built in 1997 as part of the La Mesa Gateway retail center, a large-scale redevelopment project that transformed an older industrial area and open creek into a treelined regional retail corridor. The 10.9-acre project site includes the warehouse building, surface parking, and mature landscaping.

A Costco fueling facility, located on the adjacent parcel to the east, shares vehicular access, parking, and circulation with the warehouse. Driveway access to Fletcher Parkway is also shared between the warehouse and a neighboring site to the west that is developed with fast-food restaurant buildings.

Other surrounding uses include a self-storage facility accessed via Baltimore Drive to the west and Metropolitan Transit Service (MTS) right-of-way to the south. The railway tracks run parallel to the site along the top of a steep embankment. Across Fletcher Parkway to the north are various retail and office uses. The Assessor Parcel Map sheet is provided as Attachment B, and current views of the building are provided as Attachment C. A vicinity map is provided below.

The warehouse site has four driveway
entrances along Fletcher Parkway. The
access point at the Marengo Drive
intersection is signalized and allows for
left-hand in/out turn movements. The other
three entrances are non-signalized and are
either right-turn in/out or right-turn in-only.

Treelined sidewalks extend along the
street.

Within the project site, vehicle access
wraps around all four sides of the building.

Internal access through the center extends
from the fast-food restaurants at the west
end to Chili’s restaurant at Jackson Drive
one-half mile to the east.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 28, 2023
Page: 3 of 6
The facility appears much as it did when originally built. In 2017, the original blue roof and architectural accent color were updated to red. A number of mature pine trees on the site were replaced with Brisbane Box trees in 2020. Accessibility improvements were recently completed near the entrance, resulting in new walkways and landscaping in landscape planters at the northeast corner of the building.

Zoning is CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service / Floodway Overlay / Urban Design Overlay) and the planned land use designation is Regional Serving Commercial.

Entitlement review for new development consists of site development plan review and design review. The Design Review Board (DRB) evaluates projects for consistency with the City’s Urban Design Program.

The DRB reviewed the submitted project plans (Attachment G) in consideration of the City’s Urban Design Program and recommended approval of the project, with conditions, on November 28, 2022. The DRB Certification of Action is provided as Attachment A. Design-related conditions of approval include using decorative concrete masonry unit (CMU) block for the side and rear of the mechanical equipment enclosure, of sufficient height to provide screening, and using 36-inch box size for trees installed as part of the project.

The Site Development Plan was approved by Community Development Director’s Notice of Decision on March 15, 2023, with conditions. Notice of Decision No. 2023-01 is provided as Attachment D.

DISCUSSION:

Costco Wholesale proposes to expand the warehouse facility with a 16,032-square-foot addition along the north and west sides of the building and a smaller 1,717-square-foot dairy cooler on the south elevation adjacent to a new ground-mounted refrigeration equipment enclosure. The building addition provides additional retail area within the store as well as an expansion of the bakery and prep areas. The project also includes a 1,584-sqare-foot addition to the mezzanine within the existing building for new staff areas including a new conference room.

Site alterations include changes to vehicular circulation and parking. A drive aisle and parking adjacent to the existing west building wall will be removed, resulting in a more direct route to the north and east parking areas. Parking will also be lost along the north and south sides of the building where the additions are planned. In total, the project removes 61 existing parking spaces and requires an additional 78 parking spaces based on the City’s requirement of one space per 250 square feet of building area. As the Costco facility currently has a parking surplus of 230 spaces, the project would meet the City’s parking requirements and retain a surplus of 91 spaces.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 28, 2023
Page: 4 of 6
The landscape concept provides for trees and shrubs on the west and south sides of the warehouse. Three Carrotwood trees will be removed and new Brisbane Box trees planted in new parking lot planters. One existing Brisbane Box in the location of the proposed equipment enclosure will also be removed.

The addition squares off the northwest corner of the building and ties in nearly flush with the entry canopy at the northeast corner. The length of the entry canopy along the north wall will be shortened such that it will no longer terminate at a support column.

Architectural elements on the new north and west façades mimic the forms and spacing of the existing treatments. The depth of the pop-outs is reduced from what is currently present, but the proposed offsets are sufficient to provide visible horizontal relief. A standing seam metal pyramid roof on the northwest corner of the building will be similar to the existing corner tower treatment. A color and materials board provided by the applicant includes samples of the proposed exterior treatments. Colors and materials match existing, including natural gray CMU split face, scored, and precision block, white stucco for the pop-out elements, and red for accent details and on the standing seam metal roof.

A dairy cooler addition is proposed along the south building wall, in a low-visibility location at the rear of the building. The cooler’s exterior refrigeration panels are a compatible solid gray color.

Ground mounted refrigeration equipment is proposed within an enclosure next to the dairy cooler addition. One new rooftop unit will be screened from view behind the building’s parapet wall.

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 28, 2023
Page: 5 of 6
Overall, the addition is compatible with the existing building and utilizes matching materials and treatments. The project provides new landscaping and the architecture continues to be in harmony with the design motif of adjacent development along Fletcher Parkway.

Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Costco Las Mesa Retail Fueling Facility Expansion Project was adopted by the Development Advisory Board on November 26, 2018, as Resolution No. DAB-18-03 (Attachment E). Adopted mitigation measures in the areas of Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise serve to reduce potential construction-related impacts to less than significant.

The proposed scope of work represents minor modifications to a project that has already undergone environmental review. Updates to the submitted traffic trip generation analysis, water quality technical report, and geotechnical study were prepared for the current project. No new issues were identified.

The minor changes proposed would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, no substantial changes in the environmental conditions since preparation and adoption of the 2018 IS/MND, and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified impacts. For these reasons, an Addendum to the previously adopted MND is the appropriate environmental review document to address the project changes. An Addendum (Attachment F) has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the City Council ratify the Design Review Board’s approval of Project 2021-24.

Reviewed by: Respectfully submitted by:
____________________ ____________________________
Greg Humora Kerry Kusiak
City Manager Director of Community Development
Attachments:

Report to Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: March 28, 2023
Page: 6 of 6
A. Design Review Board Certification of Action for Project 2021-24 B. Assessor Parcel Map Sheet
C. Site photographs
D. Community Development Director Notice of Decision No. 2023-01 E. Development Advisory Board Resolution No. DAB-18-03
F. Addendum to the Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration G. Project plans

Project 2021‐24  8125 Fletcher Parkway
Views of north elevaƟon facing Fletcher Parkway.

Project 2021‐24  8125 Fletcher Parkway
Current view of south elevaƟon.

Current view of west elevaƟon.

Current view of southwest corner of building.

Exterior treatment details
Project 2021‐24  8125 Fletcher Parkway Page 55 of 585

RESOLUTION NO. DAB-18-03

RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A NEW GAS STATION FACILITY AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 8125 AND 8165

FLETCHER PARKWAY IN THE CM-F-D (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICE / FLOODWAY OVERLAY / URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE ________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Development Advisory Board of the City of La Mesa did hold a duly noticed public hearing on November 26, 2018, to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for a new gas station facility, related site improvements, and Tentative Parcel Map TPM 18-04 at 8125 and 8165 Fletcher Parkway in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service / Floodway Overlay / Urban Design Overlay) zone; WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq., and its implementing guidelines (“CEQA Guidelines”), California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000, et seq., the City completed an Environmental Initial Study and prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; WHEREAS, the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures to address Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Cultural Resources referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance;
WHEREAS, multiple technical studies are included as appendices as part of the initial study and were accepted by the City;
WHEREAS, potential impacts associated with Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Cultural Resources are included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be adopted with the final environmental document;
WHEREAS, mitigations to address potential impacts related to: standard procedures if archeological resources are discovered, a paleontological monitoring plan, preparation of a construction management plan, conducting investigation and/or assessment of the soil, and measures to address construction noise;
WHEREAS, a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and made available for public review;
WHEREAS, a notice was sent to surrounding property owners informing them of the availability of the draft environmental document for review and comment, formally, from October 12, 2018 to November 13, 2018. The initial study and supporting documents were circulated to the State Clearinghouse. No correspondence was received during the review period; and WHEREAS, the Development Advisory Board did receive and consider a staff report and public input on the proposal concurrently with Tentative Parcel Map TPM 18-04.

Resolution No. DAB-18-03 November 26, 2018

THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:

Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings:

1. The Development Advisory Board finds and determines that the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have been duly observed in conjunction with said hearing and the considerations of this matter and all of the previous proceedings related thereto.

2. The Development Advisory Board finds and determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The project will not have an adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures to address Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Cultural Resources referenced in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Development Advisory Board’s independent judgment and analysis.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF LA MESA AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are true and hereby made a part hereof.

2. The foregoing findings of fact and determinations are supported by the staff report, plans, and exhibits, all of which are herein incorporated by reference.

3. The Development Advisory Board adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as shown in Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Development Advisory Board of the City of La Mesa, California, held the 26th day of November, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Kusiak, Leja, Maldonado, Sturm
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

Resolution No. DAB-18-03 November 26, 2018

I, Howard Lee, Deputy Secretary of the City of La Mesa Development Advisory Board, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and exact copy of Resolution DAB-18-03, duly passed and adopted by the Development Advisory Board.
__________________________________
Howard Lee, Deputy Secretary
Development Advisory Board
E:\cp2018\Resolutions\DAB\TPM-18-04 CEQA.doc

Addendum to the Costco La Mesa Retail Fueling Facility
Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Declaration
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project –
8125 Fletcher Parkway
MARCH 2023
Prepared for:

CITY OF LA MESA
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942
Contact: Allyson Kinnard, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Carey J. Fernandes, AICP

ATTACHMENT G

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

13795 i MARCH 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Overview.....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Location......................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Setting ........................................................................................................................................2

1.4 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................2

1.4.1 Use of an Addendum ................................................................................................................2

1.4.2 Incorporation by Reference......................................................................................................3

1.4.3 Addendum Process and Availability.........................................................................................3 2 Project Description...............................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Project Summary from 2018 IS/MND...................................................................................................5

2.2 Minor Project Changes...........................................................................................................................5 3 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................................................................7

3.1 Environmental Factors Previously Analyzed .........................................................................................7

3.2 Environmental Factors Dismissed from Further Analysis..............................................................................8

3.3 Environmental Factors Further Considered....................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 12

3.3.2 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire........................................................................ 13

3.3.3 Noise....................................................................................................................................... 13 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 15 5 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 17 6 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 TABLE
1 Summary of Impacts from the 2018 IS/MND....................................................................................................7

FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 21 2 Aerial Photograph.............................................................................................................................................. 23 3 Conceptual Site Plan......................................................................................................................................... 25 4 Conceptual Floor Plan....................................................................................................................................... 27

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
ii MARCH 2023
5 Conceptual Demolition Plan............................................................................................................................. 29 6 Conceptual Demolition Plan............................................................................................................................. 31 7 Conceptual Grading Plan.................................................................................................................................. 33 8 Conceptual Utility Plan...................................................................................................................................... 35 9 Conceptual Elevations ...................................................................................................................................... 37 10 Colored Concept Elevations.............................................................................................................................. 39

APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Outputs
B Geotechnical Study
C Storm Water Quality Management Plan
D Warehouse Expansion Traffic Assessment Letter
E Required Fire Flow

13795 iii MARCH 2023
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
I Interstate
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
SCH State Clearinghouse
VMT Vehicle miles traveled

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
iv MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13795 1 MARCH 2023
1 Introduction
This Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Costco La Mesa Retail Fueling Facility Expansion Project (SCH #2018101030) has been prepared for the City of La Mesa (City) in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The City is the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed project. This Addendum updates the MND, which was adopted by the Development Advisory Board of the City of La Mesa (Resolution No. DAB 18-03) on November 26, 2018. The MND and supporting technical studies are available to the public for review at the offices of the City of La Mesa Community Development Department, at 8130 Allison Avenue, La Mesa, California 91942.

This section discusses the proposed project background and overview, location, and environmental setting, as well as compliance with CEQA. A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Section 2, Project Description, and an analysis of potential environmental effects due to the proposed changes to the project is detailed in Section 3, Environmental Analysis. Section 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, discusses required mitigation and Section 5, Conclusion, summarizes the conclusions of this Addendum.

1.1 Background and Overview
The project site is located at 8125 Fletcher Parkway and is included in the City of La Mesa’s General Plan area (Figure 1, Project Location and Figure 2, Aerial Photograph). The existing General Plan Land Use map identifies the project site as Commercial and is within the Regional Serving Commercial Planned Land Use area (City of La Mesa 2013a). The zoning map identifies the project site as Light Industrial and Commercial Service within a Floodway Overlay Zone and Urban Design Overlay Zone (CM-F-D) (City of La Mesa 2021a). In 2018, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Costco La Mesa Retail Fueling Facility Expansion Project (2018 IS/MND) to allow for the demolition of an existing 40,000-square-foot vacant retail building and the construction of a new Costco gas station at the existing Costco Warehouse facility.

This Addendum evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed modification to the 2018 IS/MND to construct a total of approximately 19,333 square feet of expansion space to the existing Costco Warehouse and reduce the number of parking spaces from 764 stalls to 703 stalls (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan and Figure 4, Conceptual Floor Plan). The proposed project is an allowable use within the project site’s Zone District and General Plan Designation, and no changes in the underlying land use designation or zoning would be required.

1.2 Project Location
The project is centrally located in the City of La Mesa, which is located in the southwestern portion of San Diego County. Regionally, the City is bordered by the cities of San Diego to the north and west, Lemon Grove to the south, El Cajon to the northeast, and unincorporated San Diego County to the east and southeast. Locally, the project site is located within the La Mesa Gateway Shopping Center, which is generally bounded by Fletcher Parkway to the north and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway right-of-way to the south (MTS 2013). Specifically, the project site encompasses an existing retail building and its associated parking lot, both of which are located immediately east of the Costco warehouse store.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
2 MARCH 2023
The project site consists of two parcels: an approximately 3.26-acre site that consists of one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 464-600-15-00), addressed as 8165 Fletcher Parkway, and the existing Costco warehouse store and parking lot, which is located on an 11-acre parcel (APN 464-600-26-00) addressed as 8125 Fletcher Parkway. The expanded operational activities proposed by the Project would be confined to APN 464-600-26-00, and all staging of construction materials would occur within this parcel.

Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 8 (I-8) and Fletcher Parkway.

1.3 Project Setting
As described in the 2018 IS/MND, the project area has historically been used for light industrial and commercial purposes. By 1964, the project site developed with a warehouse-type building and by a portion of a warehouse type building in 1970. Starting in 1998, the area that would become the La Mesa Gateway Shopping Center started to experience grading and development. The existing Costco Warehouse was constructed in 2001 and began operations in 2002. The fueling facility expansion project was completed in 2020.

The City’s General Plan Land Use Map (City of La Mesa 2013a) designates the project site as Regional Commercial.

Similarly, the City’s Zoning Map (City of La Mesa 2021a) identifies the project site as in the CM-F-D (Light Industrial and Commercial Service/Floodway Overlay/Urban Design Overlay) Zone. The CM zone is intended to include heavy commercial activity and light industrial services. The Floodway Overlay Zone F is intended for application in those areas of the City within floodways or watercourses in which flood control structures and facilities are either required or planned to be installed or improved. All new development and major renovations or remodeling of property within the Urban Design Overlay Zone is subject to the requirements of the Urban Design Overlay Program and approval by the Design Review Board and City Council (City of La Mesa 2013a).

Surrounding Land Uses
As described in the 2018 IS/Notice of Preparation, the project site is surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses on all sides. The existing Costco warehouse and other commercial retail stores and restaurants are located in the same shopping center. Fletcher Parkway, a six-lane roadway that runs east to west, is located immediately north of the project site and railroad tracks associated with the Orange Line of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System are located directly south of the project site and run east to west.

1.4 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance

1.4.1 Use of an Addendum
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to a certified EIR or an adopted Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that call for preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration for a project has been prepared, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency (the City) determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, one or more of the following:

Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
3 MARCH 2023
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; B. Significant effects previously discussed will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

1.4.2 Incorporation by Reference
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, permit and encourage that an environmental document incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The City of La Mesa General Plan (City of La Mesa 2013b), the City of La Mesa General Plan EIR (City of La Mesa 2013c), and the La Mesa Code of Ordinances (City of La Mesa 2021b), which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, are available for review, as follows:

City of La Mesa
Community Development Department
Planning and Zoning Division
8130 Allison Avenue
La Mesa, California 91942

1.4.3 Addendum Process and Availability
Per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d) states the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the project. Once adopted, the addendum is placed in the City’s Administrative Record, along with the original EIR or Negative Declaration, thus completing the CEQA process.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
4 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13795 5 MARCH 2023
2 Project Description

2.1 Project Summary from 2018 IS/MND
The entire project site has an established 133,472 square-foot Costco Warehouse with 764 total parking stalls and a that has been in operation since 2002. The 2018 IS/MND evaluated the Costco La Mesa Retail Fueling Facility Expansion Project, which allowed for the demolition of an existing 40,000-square-foot vacant retail building and the construction of a new Costco gas station at the existing Costco Warehouse facility.

2.2 Minor Project Changes
As described in Section 1.1, Background and Overview, this Addendum evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed modification to the 2018 IS/MND to construct a total of approximately 19,333 square feet of expansion space to the existing Costco Warehouse and reduce the number of parking spaces from 764 stalls to 703 stalls as detailed below (see Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan and Figure 4, Conceptual Floor Plan):
▪ Increase the total existing warehouse building area from 133,472 square feet to 152,805 square feet to allow for the construction of a new building additions to the north and west sides of the building totaling 16,032 square feet and a new dairy cooler addition to the south side of the building totaling 1,717 square feet, and an interior mezzanine expansion totaling 1,584 square feet. ▪ Alterations to the existing on-site parking to reduce the total number of parking spaces from 764 total parking stalls (includes 57 10-foot-wide stalls, 666 9-foot-wide stalls, 25 accessible stalls, 6 future electrical car charging stations, 1 accessible future car charging station, and 9 low emission/van pool electric vehicle parking to 703 total parking stalls (includes 49 10-foot-wide stalls, 613 9-foot-wide stalls, 25 accessible stalls, 6 future electrical car charging stations, 1 accessible future car charging station, and 9 low emission/van pool electric vehicle parking.

All construction activities would occur within APN 464-600-26-00 and would not impact surrounding businesses.

Construction is anticipated to start in May 2023 and would take ten (10) to eleven (11) months to complete. The work area would be surrounded by a temporary construction fence during this time and gated for security.

No changes in zone district or General Plan designation would be required.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
6 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13795 7 MARCH 2023
3 Environmental Analysis

3.1 Environmental Factors Previously Analyzed
The 2018 IS/MND was completed per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063–15065 and Sections 15070-15074 and evaluated whether the project would have an adverse impact on the environment. Table 1, Summary of Impacts from 2018 IS/MND, summarizes the resource area impacts and if mitigation would be required.

Table 1. Summary of Impacts from the 2018 IS/MND
Impact Section Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Agriculture and Forestry Resources No impacts and no mitigation required Air Quality and Energy Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Biological Resources Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Cultural Resources Impacts less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2
Geology and Soils Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Hazards and Hazardous Materials and
Wildfire
Impacts less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Land Use and Planning Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Mineral Resources No impacts and no mitigation required Noise Impacts less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1
Population and Housing Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Public Services Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Recreation Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Transportation and Traffic Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Tribal Cultural Resources No impacts and no mitigation required Utilities and Service Systems Impacts less than significant and no mitigation required Mandatory Findings of Significance Impacts less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and NOI-1
The subsequent impact analysis below demonstrates impacts associated with the proposed project are consistent with the previously adopted 2018 IS/MND. The following includes the project-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA and incorporates required mitigation measures accordingly.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
8 MARCH 2023

3.2 Environmental Factors Dismissed from Further Analysis The analysis in the 2018 IS/MND determined that no significant impacts would occur to the following resources areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality and Energy, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. There are no proposed changes in the project, no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the 2018 IS/MND for these resource areas. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the 2018 IS/MND would result, and no additional analysis of these topics is required based on the following information:

Aesthetics: The proposed project site is located in a commercial area of the City and is completely surrounded by development. The established 133,472 square-foot Costco Warehouse with 764 total parking stalls and a fueling station is located within the project boundaries and was designed to be consistent with the Urban Design Program and the City’s General Plan. As with the 2018 project, the final design of the proposed project would require conformance with the City Municipal Code Section 24.02.036, Urban Design Review, and approval of the City’s Design Review Board and City Counsel. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Section

24.06, Commercial Zones and Development Regulations of the La Mesa Municipal Code, which establishes lighting standards for the project. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts to aesthetics would remain less than significant.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The proposed project site is located in an urban area of the city and no agriculture uses or forestry lands exist on the project site. Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources.

Air Quality and Energy: The project site is within the Light Industrial and Commercial Service Zone (CM) and the Costco Warehouse facility is an existing and allowed use. As such, the project is within the scope of development that was anticipated in the General Plan used to develop the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan. Construction and operation of the project would result in emissions that were considered as a part of the RAQS growth projections.

As such, the project is not anticipated to conflict with the RAQS or the State Implementation Plan.

Project construction and operation would result in emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5, which were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0, default assumptions, and project specific details where available. The proposed project’s maximum daily construction and operational emissions would not exceed the County’s Screening Level Thresholds for any criteria air pollutant.1,2 Detailed construction and operational 1 Project construction would result in criteria air pollutant emissions that are below the County's SLTs as follows: 16.8 pounds per day VOC (below the 137 pounds per day VOC threshold), 15.5 pounds per day NOx (below the 250 pounds per day NOx threshold),

7.6 pounds per day CO (below the 550 pounds per day CO threshold), <0.1 pounds per day SOx (below the 250 pounds per day SOx threshold), 6.6 pounds per day PM10 (below the 100 pounds per day PM10 threshold), and 3.2 pounds per day PM2.5 (below the 55 pounds per day PM2.5 threshold).
2 Project operation would result in criteria air pollutant emissions that are below the County's SLTs as follows: 1.0 pounds per day VOC (below the 137 pounds per day VOC threshold), 0.6 pounds per day NOx (below the 250 pounds per day NOx threshold), 4.8 pounds per day CO (below the 550 pounds per day CO threshold), <0.1 pounds per day SOx (below the 250 pounds per day SOx threshold), 1.0 pounds per day PM10 (below the 100 pounds per day PM10 threshold), and 0.3 pounds per day PM2.5 (below the 55 pounds per day PM2.5 threshold).

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
9 MARCH 2023
modeling assumptions and results are provided in Appendix A. Additionally, project construction and operations would be required to comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to air quality in the basin. The project would be required to comply with the most current Title 24 California Building Code (CBC)/Code of Regulations (24 CCR Part 11 2019) and 2019 California Energy Commission’s energy standards at the time of building construction. During project construction and operation, heavy-duty truck idling would be limited to 5 minutes in accordance with CARB’s adopted Airborne Toxic Control Measure (13 CCR 2485), which would reduce fuel consumption. Project construction and operation would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts to air quality and energy resources would remain less than significant.

Biological Resources: The project site is located in a developed part of the City and is surrounded by a predominantly urbanized mix of land uses, including commercial and industrial land uses on all sides. No native habitat is located on the project site or in the immediately surrounding area.

The project site does not contain any natural drainage courses or aquatic resources regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as jurisdictional waters of the United States or waters of the state.

There is no open space or coastal sage scrub habitat located on or near the project site, and no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan covers the project site.

Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts to biological resources would remain less than significant.

Geology and Soils: Minimal ground disturbance would occur as part of the proposed project. The design and construction of the proposed project is required to comply with the most current building and safety codes regulating seismic hazards and structural integrity, including the most recent version of the California Building Code and the La Mesa Municipal Code. A project specific geotechnical study and report has been prepared and is included as Attachment B. Additionally, the proposed project must comply with NPDES requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Chapter 7.18, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the Municipal Code. A Storm Water Management Plan, which includes the City’s Storm Water Applicability Checklist, has been prepared for the project and is included as Attachment B.

Compliance with the project design features and Best Management Practices recommended in the technical reports would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts to geology and soils would remain less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Project construction and operation would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which were estimated using CalEEMod and the same default assumptions and project specific details used for the Air Quality analysis described above. The proposed project’s combined operational and amortized (30 years) construction GHG emissions are anticipated to be approximately 206 MTCO2e annually. Detailed construction and operational modeling assumptions and results are provided in Appendix A. The project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
10 MARCH 2023
or Climate Action Plan (CAP). Furthermore, the project is within the scope of development that was anticipated in the General Plan used to develop the CAP. As with the 2018 project, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Because project construction activities would disturb one or more acres, the proposed project must adhere to the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit. Additionally, the proposed project must comply with Section 7.18, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, of the La Mesa Municipal Code. As the project is an expansion of an existing facility, the developed site drainage pattern would remain generally unchanged from the existing condition. The project also does not propose or require the use of groundwater at the facility, so no depletion of groundwater supplies would occur. All proposed development located within Floodway Overlay Zone F are required to comply with the regulations of Section 24.08, Floodway Overlay Zone F, of the City’s Municipal Code. As mentioned above, a Storm Water Management Plan, which includes the City’s Storm Water Applicability Checklist, has been prepared for the project (Attachment C). Compliance with the Best Management Practices recommended in the Stormwater Management Plan would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to hydrology and water quality would remain less than significant.

Land Use and Planning: The proposed project is and expansion of an existing facility and is an allowable use within the project site’s existing Zone District and General Plan Designation. No changes in land use would be required. There is no open space or coastal sage scrub habitat located on or near the project site, and no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan covers the project site. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to land use and planning would remain less than significant.

Mineral Resources: There are no mineral resources within the project site and the site is not delineated as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on mineral resources.

Population and Housing: No residential uses or other land uses typically associated with directly inducing population growth would be constructed as part of the proposed project and the project would not result in substantial population growth. The proposed project would not construct new or extend existing utilities, infrastructure, or roadways into an area not currently served by such improvements. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to population and housing would remain less than significant.

Public Services: The project site currently served by existing public services, including fire and police protection. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in an increase in population. As such, the proposed project would not increase enrollment at schools or patronage

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
11 MARCH 2023
at parks, libraries, or other public facilities. Moreover, the project would not materially increase demand for fire or police protection. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to public services would remain less than significant.

Recreation: The proposed project would not include any residential uses or other land uses typically associated with an increased usage of existing park and recreational facilities and would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on recreation.

Transportation and Traffic: The proposed project is an expansion of an existing Costco Warehouse facility, which includes a fueling station. While the project proposes to reduce the number of onsite parking stalls from 764 total to 703 total, the total number of parking stalls available would continue to exceed the City’s design requirement of 4 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building (612 stalls total). According to the October 27, 2022, La Mesa Costco Warehouse Expansion Traffic Assessment Letter (Attachment D), the proposed project is estimated to generate 19 additional p.m. peak hour trip ends and 26 additional weekend midday peak hour trip ends. Since the 2018 project was approved the CEQA Guidelines have been updated and no longer consider Level of Service an impact. The Guidelines now require an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The City of La Mesa has not yet adopted thresholds for evaluating potential project-related impacts to VMT.

However, per direction from the City, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region (May 2019) have been used in the analysis.

Based on the ITE Guidelines, projects that generate less than 1,000 daily trips and are consistent with the local General Plan or Community Plan are not required to prepare a project-specific VMT analysis and impacts can be presumed to be less than significant. It is anticipated the proposed project would not generate more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day beyond what is already occurring at the site, considering there would only be a net increase of 26 trips during the mid-day peak.

Therefore, the project is not subject to an evaluation of VMT due to the limited number of trips and impacts to VMT are presumed to be less than significant.

The project is proposing to expand the existing Costco warehouse with the objective of modernizing the building and providing additional space for products and receiving, and for food services.

Access to the site would continue to be provided from four existing driveways on Fletcher Parkway.

There would be no changes to the existing access or off-site circulation on City roads. As such, no sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses would be introduced by the expansion project. Therefore, no impacts associated with hazardous design features or incompatible land uses, or emergency access, would occur.

Therefore, based on the above, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to traffic and transportation would remain less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources: The entire project site has been previously disturbed through development and there is very low potential for inadvertent discoveries during ground-breaking activities. No disturbance of previously undisturbed land would occur as part of the project.

Tribal consultation was completed for the project site in August 2018 as part of the 2018

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
12 MARCH 2023
IS/MND process. There are no known Tribal cultural resources that have been identified that could be impacted by the project. Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on Tribal cultural resources.

Utilities and Service Systems: Build out of the proposed project would not substantially increase the demand for utilities and services systems beyond what was analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND. As a condition of approval, all existing utility easements would be protected during construction within these easements. In addition, the project served by the Helix Water District and is subject to all requirements, policies, practices, and standards at the time of establishing a project and submitting improvement plans to the District. As the proposed project would not materially increase utility demand, it can be adequately serviced by the existing utility infrastructure. Therefore, no additional impacts would occur from project implementation beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND and impacts related to utilities and services systems would remain less than significant.

3.3 Environmental Factors Further Considered
The discussion below describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project as compared with the impacts of the approved project analyzed in the 2018 IS/MND. This section only addresses those resource areas that would be potentially affected by the proposed changes to the approved project. As discussed below, no new significant impacts were identified beyond those in the 2018 IS/MND and required mitigation measures are incorporated accordingly.

3.3.1 Cultural Resources
The 2018 IS/MND determined there are no known historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources or human remains on-site. As with the 2018 project, it is unlikely that previously unknown cultural resources would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. However, as is the case with most other development projects that involve earthwork activity, there is always a possibility—albeit very low in this instance—that subsurface construction activity could unearth a potentially significant Native American or archaeological resource. Therefore, MM-CUL-1 is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, there is always a possibility that subsurface construction activity could unearth a potentially significant paleontological resource. As such, implementation of MM-CUL-2 would be required to ensure that subsurface construction activity complies with the standard procedures for treatment of unanticipated discoveries of paleontological resources. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant for the proposed project.

Therefore, based on the above analysis, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources with the incorporation of MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2. There are no proposed changes in the project, no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the 2018 IS/MND.

Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the 2018 IS/MND would result in this impact category.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
13 MARCH 2023

3.3.2 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
The 2018 IS/MND analyzed project impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials based on the construction and operation of a fueling center at the existing Costco Warehouse facility. The project is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. According to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the 2018 project, the project site address was listed in the Environmental Database Report (EDR) report in the Facility and Manifest (HAZNET) database. Previous occupants of the project site, “Kiddie Kandids” and “Toys R Us,” were listed in the HAZNET database. However, based on the review of the HAZNET database, GeoTracker, and EnviroStor, there are no active cases on, or immediately surrounding, the project site. Potential impacts due to exposure, upset, and accident conditions to the public, workers, and the environment by hazardous materials during construction and operation would be less-than-significant as the handling, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. To ensure the safety of workers and the public during construction of the proposed project, MM-HAZ-1 would be implemented, requiring the preparation of a construction management plan. The incorporation of MM-HAZ-2 from the 2018 IS/MND would not be required as underground storage tanks would not be installed as part of this project.

As stated in the 2018 IS/MND, the proposed project is located in a highly urbanized area and in not located where residences are adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not require the installation of additional infrastructure that would exacerbate a fire risk. The warehouse expansion area would be constructed of non-combustible materials and equipped with an automatic fire suppression system. As stated in the June 8, 2021 letter from Heartland Fire & Rescue (Attachment E), a sufficient fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute would be provided from the on-site hydrant and additional water supply or water storage would not be required.

The proposed project would have a less than significant impact due to hazards and hazardous materials and wildfire with the incorporation of MM-HAZ-1. There are no proposed changes in the project, no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter this impact conclusion of the 2018 IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the 2018 IS/MND would result in this impact category.

3.3.3 Noise
The 2018 IS/MND analyzed project impacts due to noise and vibration on nearby sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors in the project area included multi-family residential housing areas and hotels. It was determined that with incorporation of MM-NOI-1, which required all construction equipment be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, limited unnecessary construction noise, and required the posting of construction information and the phone number of the job superintendent at each entrance, impacts due to noise and vibration would be less than significant.

Similar to the 2018 project, the proposed project would be constructed near existing multi-family residential housing and hotels. However, construction and operational noise and vibration levels are anticipated to be less than what was originally analyzed in the 2018 project as the site is already an existing Costco Warehouse and no major demolition, clearing, or grading would occur as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the use of heavy equipment that generate the highest noise and vibrations levels would not be required. In addition, the project construction would be required to comply with the La Mesa Municipal Code, which limits construction to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Mondays through Saturdays and prohibits construction on Sundays. To

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
14 MARCH 2023
ensure noise and vibration levels remain at a less than significant level during construction, MM-NOI-1 would be implemented as part of the proposed project. Operations of the project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels as the project site is already an operating Costco Warehouse with a fueling station sited in a commercially zoned area with similar type developments.

Therefore, based on the above analysis, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact due to noise and vibration with the incorporation of MM-NOI-1. There are no proposed changes in the project, no changed circumstances, and no new information that would alter the impact conclusions of the 2018 IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the 2018 IS/MND would result in this impact category.

13795 15 MARCH 2023
4 Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program

4.1 Mitigation Measures
All mitigation measures included in the adopted 2018 Final MND would continue to be implemented as part of the proposed project, apart from MM-HAZ-2, which was determined to not be required for the proposed project. No new mitigation measures are proposed or would be required as part of the minor project description modifications analyzed in this Addendum.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
16 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13795 17 MARCH 2023
5 Conclusion
The City has determined that the proposed changes represent minor modifications to a project that has already undergone environmental review. The 2018 IS/MND analyzed the addition of a gas station to the existing Costco Warehouse. The proposed project would expand the existing warehouse to include approximately 19,333 square feet of additional space and would not include development beyond the limits of the existing parcels. In addition, the proposed project is an allowable use within the CM-F-D Zone District and underlying General Plan designation and no changes in land use or zoning would be required.

As discussed in Section 3, Environmental Analysis, the minor changes proposed by the project would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. Similarly, there are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, no substantial changes in the environmental conditions since preparation and adoption of the 2018 IS/MND, and no new information of substantial importance that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified impacts. Thus, the City has determined that an Addendum to the 2018 IS/MND is the appropriate environmental review document to address the project changes. Given this finding, this Addendum to the adopted 2018 IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and no additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed project.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
18 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13795 19 MARCH 2023
6 References
24 CCR Part 11. 2019. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Sacramento, California: California Building Standards Commission. January 2019. ISBN 978-1-60983-462-3. http://codes.iccsafe.org/ app/book/toc/2015/CALIFORNIA/2013%20CALIFORNIA%20GREEN%20BUILDING%20STANDARDS, %20SUPPLEMENT%20JULY%202015/index.html.

CA DTSC HWTS. 2021. Handler Profile: CAK000412421 – TOYS R US #5626. https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/ facility/CAL000412421. Accessed: November 24, 2021.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste Tracking System. 2021. Handler Profile:

CAC002568107 - KIDDIE KANDIDS. https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/facility/CAC002568107. Accessed:

November 24, 2021.

California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

City of La Mesa. 2013a. “City of La Mesa General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Element.” In City of La Mesa 2012 Centennial General Plan. Adopted July 9, 2013. Available: http://www.cityoflamesa.com/ DocumentCenter/View/6197/03LaMesaGPLandUseUrbanDesign-CD?bidId=. Accessed: November 22, 2021.

City of La Mesa. 2013b. City of La Mesa 2012 Centennial General Plan. Adopted July 9, 2013. Available:
https://www.cityoflamesa.us/DocumentCenter/View/6194/00LaMesaGPTableOfContents-CD?bidId=.

Accessed: November 22, 2021.

City of La Mesa. 2013c. City of La Mesa General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH no. 2012061053.

Certified July 9, 2013. Available: http://www.cityoflamesa.com/1077/2012-General-Plan-EIR. Accessed:

November 22, 2021.

City of La Mesa. 2021a. City of La Mesa Zoning [web map]. Available: https://lamesaca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=8fe276fcec69432eab009b3f64eb35b9. Accessed: November 22, 2021.

City of La Mesa. 2021b. City of La Mesa Municipal Code. Amended October 20, 2021. Available:
https://library.municode.com/ca/la_mesa/codes/code_of_ordinances. Accessed: November 22, 2021.

EnviroStor. 2021. Sites and Facilities. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Search.

Accessed: November 24, 2021.

GeoTracker. 2021. 8125 Fletcher Pkwy, La Mesa, CA 91942, USA. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=8125+Fletcher+Parkway%2C +La+Mesa%2C+CA. Accessed: November 24, 2021.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). May 2019. Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies in the San Diego Region.

MTS (Metropolitan Transit System). 2013. “San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway Fact Sheet.” April 2013. Available: https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SDAEFactSheet.pdf. Accessed:

November 22, 2021.

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
20 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

1 ÄÆ25
ÄÆ94
1 ÄÆ25
§¨¦8
§¨¦8
Project Location
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series La Mesa Quadrangle
Date: 12/10/2021 - Last saved by: bdokkestul - Path: Z:\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
n
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
1:24,000
0 50100
Meters
San Clemente
Dana
Point Temecula
Murrieta
Lake La Quinta
Elsinore
Menifee Palm Springs
Chula
Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
M e x i c o
9 ÄÆ05
2 ÄÆ09
ÄÆ75
ÄÆ52
ÄÆ94 1
ÄÆ88
2 ÄÆ41
ÄÆ54
1 ÄÆ25
2 ÄÆ74
ÄÆ56
1 ÄÆ11
ÄÆ78
ÄÆ ÄÆ86 ÄÆ74 74
ÄÆ67
ÄÆ76 ÄÆ79
§¨¦805
§¨¦215
§¨¦8
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
§¨¦8

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
!(^ Project Site

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
22 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A
erialPhotograph
CostcoWarehouseExpansionProject
SOURCE:USGS7.5-MinuteSeriesLaMesaQuadrangle
Date: 12/10/2021 - Last saved by: bdokkestul - Path: Z:\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum\Figure2_AerialPhotograph.mxd 0125250F
eet
n
ProjectBoundary
FIGURE2
1:3,000
050100M
eters

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
24 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

16'-0"
25'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
63'-0"
63'-0"
63'-0"

EXISTING

TRANSFORMER
14'-0"

SAN DIEGO TROLLEY
12'-0"

EXISTING

RECEIVING

EXISTING

COMPACTOR EXISTING
DOCK

LOADING
25'-0"

FLETCHER PARKWAY EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT

LA MESA, CA
#469

ACCESSIBILITY ENTRANCE
SIGN, TYP OF 3

BUILDING ADDITION
16,032 SF
15 15
13 40
6 9
6 34
5 3
4 C B A
1 2
D

FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL
VAN
VAN

DAIRY COOLER ADDITION
1,717 SF
26 28
16 15
12 8

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL
ADA 2
ADA 1
ADA 2
ADA 1
6 FEV
2 9
26 1
31 9
11 46
40 48
35 2
16 4
4 4
2 4
9 EXISTING
ELECT.

EXISTING
ELECT. PANELS
10 40
VAN
ADA 1 NO

PARKING
ADA 1
34 NO

PARKING
ADA 4
18 ON

PARKING
VAN
VAN
5 ADA 2
6 ADA 2 ADA 9 NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING

GAS VAN

SERVICE
16' 24' 6'
17' 24' 5'
23'
3'
15'-5 5/8" 29'-7 1/2" 17' 17'-8"
4' 12'

THIS AREA IS UNDER SEPARATE
ADA UPGRADE PERMIT #B22-051

NEW REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT
NEW 8'-0" H. CHAIN LINK FENCE
NEW PAIR OF 3'-0" W. CHAIN LINK

GATES WITH KNOX LOCK FOR FIRE
ACCESS

NEW UNDERGROUND

BIOFILTRATION SYTEM

FLETCHER PARKWAY

PROJECT DATA VICINITY MAP
EXISTING SITE AREA:

EXISTING FOOD SERVICE

EXISTING TIRE CENTER

EXISTING BUILDING AREA
EXISTING BUILDING DATA:

PROJECT ADDRESS:

CLIENT:

JACKSON DRIVE
126,477 SF
4,893 SF
1,056 SF
LA MESA, CA 91942
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
999 LAKE DRIVE

COSTCO WHOLESALE
8125 FLETCHER PKWY

EL CAJON BLVD

LA MESA
COSTCO
EAST 8 8

BALTIMORE DRIVE
0 30' 60'
1" = 60'-0"
ZONING: CM-F-D

14.26 ACRES (621,080 SF)
# HC ACCESSIBLE STALLS (2% REQ.)

TOTAL PARKING
10' WIDE STALLS
9' WIDE STALLS
EXISTING PARKING:
#
#
20 STALLS
57 STALLS
666 STALLS
764 STALLS
# HC ACCESSIBLE STALLS 5 STALLS
(1 IN 6 VAN)
#
#
6 STALLS
1 STALLS

FUTURE ELECTRICAL CAR
CHARGING STATIONS (6% REQ'D)

ACCESSIBLE FUTURE ELECTRICAL

CAR CHARGING STATIONS
# LOW EMISSION/VAN POOL ELECTRIC
VEHICLE PARKING (8%REQ'D)
9 STALLS
SCALE:

SITE PLAN 1" = 60'-0"
# HC ACCESSIBLE STALLS (2% REQ.)

TOTAL PARKING
10' WIDE STALLS
9' WIDE STALLS
#
#
20 STALLS
49 STALLS
613 STALLS
703 STALLS
# HC ACCESSIBLE STALLS 5 STALLS
(1 IN 6 VAN)
#
#
6 STALLS
1 STALLS

FUTURE ELECTRICAL CAR
CHARGING STATIONS (6% REQ'D)

ACCESSIBLE FUTURE ELECTRICAL

CAR CHARGING STATIONS
# LOW EMISSION/VAN POOL ELECTRIC
VEHICLE PARKING (8%REQ'D)
9 STALLS
PROPOSED PARKING PROVIDED WITH ADDITION:
8125 FLETCHER
LA MESA, CA 9

LA MESA,
#469
EXISTING LOCKER RM. MEZZ. 1,046 SF
Conceptual Site Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 3
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
26 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DO NOT MIRROR DO NOT MIRROR DO NOT MIRROR DO NOT MIRROR

DO NOT MIRROR
12 10 8 7 6 5 4 2 1
12 11 9 7 6 5 4 3 1.1 1

9.9 G
F
E
D
C
B
A

10.6 11

10.2 9.3 8.8 7.9 7.4 6.7 5.9 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.2 3.2

8.1 7.1 6.3 5.4 4.8 4.3
AA.1
AA
AA.9
A.5
B.5
C.5
D.5
DD.9

2.9 TALL PRODUCE
COOLER
107

TALL DAIRY
COOLER
105
TALL

DELI / MEAT
COOLER
116
DELI /

DISH PREP
110

ROTISSERIE
111

ROTISSERIE
PREP
112
MEAT
PREP
115

TALL BAKERY

FREEZER
119
BAKERY
117
BAKERY
COOLER
118
RTV
106
DEMO
ROOM
159
ANTE
ROOM
150
VAULT
148
MPU
154
OFFICE
151

MANAGER
152
EXIST.

EDP EXIST.

JANITOR
MIMO

RECEPTION
ROOM
173

OPTICAL
SALES
172

MEMBERSHIP

COUNTER
109

RETURNS

COUNTER
108
EXIST.

QUIET
EXIST.

EMPLOYEE

LOCKER ROOM
WOMEN
RR
MEN RR
EXIST.

TIRE INSTALLATION
EXIST.

TIRE SALES
EXIST.

FOOD

SERVICE
EXIST.

PHARMACY

SCRUBBER PIT
123
UNISEX

RESTROOM
124
POS

FREEZER
103
POS

SUB-ZERO

FREEZER
104

CONVERT
POS
COOLER

CONVERT
AND
EXPAND
16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 36'-3" 3'-0" 9'-9" 26'-6" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 36'-3" 3'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 15'-0" 4'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 64'-0"
26'-10"
10'-8" 72'-0"
EXIST.

HEARING
CENTER
EXIST.

ELECT.
1'-8" 3'-4"
1'-0"
3'-0"
1'-8"
1'-8"
2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-8"
26' D-2 CASE (SIO) 8' HED 12' D-2
8' D-2
8' CAKE

DISPLAY
(SIO)
22' M-1 CASE (SIO)
56' M-1 CASE (SIO)
28' D-5 CASE (SIO)
56' D-5 CASE (SIO)
56' D-5 CASE (SIO)
56' M-1 CASE (SIO)
56' D-5 CASE (SIO)

MOVABLE BAKERY

RACKS (NIC)
34' M-1 CASE (SIO)
DT
8' D-5CASE
(SIO)
57'-4" 36'-0" 36'-0" 54'-0" 54'-0"
350'-0"
1'-8"
3'-0" 53'-4"
91'-6" 8'-8" 67'-2" 8'-8" 37'-4"

COMPACTOR
UP
15' STEEL15' STEEL15' STEEL

TRANSFORMER
95'-3"
5'-1"
6'-7" 10'-9"
3'-8" 3'-10" 9'-8"
6'-0"
1'-5"
20'-1"
20'-1"
15'-6" 27'-9" 11'-8"
8' D-2
OFFICE
153
6'-2 1/2"
23'-10 1/2"

EXISTING PLANTER

EXISTING CONCRETE
23'-0"
166'-6"
GREASE

INTERCEPTOR

CONFERENCE
ROOM

MEZZANINE

LOCKER ROOM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
DN
PROPOSED RACK COUNT:

GROCERY RACKS (15 ft)

CENTER SECTION
HARDLINE RACKS (15 ft)
212
19,150 SF
44 PROPOSED BUILDING DATA

EXISTING BUILDING DATA

TOTAL BUILDING
EXISTING RACK COUNT:

GROCERY RACKS (15 ft)

CENTER SECTION
HARDLINE RACKS (15 ft)
EXIST. FOOD SERVICE
EXIST. TIRE CENTER 4,893 SF
1,056 SF
133,472 SF
224
16,497 SF
140
NOTES: EXISTING CONDITIONS TO BE FIELD
VERIFIED.

EXIST. BUILDING AREA 126,477 SF

GROCERY PALLETS

HARDLINE PALLETS
40 20

HARDLINE PALLETS
127
GROCERY PALLETS 60

MASTER BUILDING DATA
BUILDING DATA:
5,318 SF
154,431 SF
BUILDING AREA 149,113 SF

TIRE CENTER

TOTAL BUILDING
RACK COUNT:

GROCERY RACKS (15 ft)

CENTER SECTION
HARDLINE RACKS (15 ft)
276
19,808 SF
HARDLINE PALLETS 36
170
GROCERY PALLETS 134
NEW BUILDING ADDITION 16,032 SF
EXISTING BUILDING AREA 133,472 SF
NEW TOTAL BUILDING AREA 152,805 SF
NEW DAIRY COOLER ADDITION 1,717 SF
EXIST. LOCKER RM. MEZZ. 1,046 SF
LOCKER RM. MEZZ. ADDITION 1,584 SF
LEGEND

EXISTING
NEW
SCALE:

EQUIPMENT
PLATFORM 1/16" = 1'-0"
© MG2. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from MG2.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN
L A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A A U G U S T 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 8125 FLETCHER PARKWAY
LA MESA, CA 91942
91-1400-33
AUGUST 30, 2022

CONCEPT

FLOOR PLAN
DD21-19

LA MESA, CA
#469
SCALE:

CONCEPT MEZZANINE
LOCKER ROOM 1/16" = 1'-0"
0 4' 8' 16'
1/8" = 1'-0"

NET AREA BREAKDOWN
1,046 SF
MEZZ. LOCKER ROOM 895 SF

TOTAL MEZZANINE

MASTER PROPOSED EXISTING
-

CONFERENCE ROOM -
-
2,055 SF
408 SF - SF
2,630 SF
ELECTRICAL ROOM - 167 SF 151 SF
Conceptual Floor Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 4
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
28 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

16'-0"
25'-0"
19'-0"
19'-0"
63'-0"
63'-0"
63'-0"

EXISTING

TRANSFORMER
14'-0"

SAN DIEGO TROLLEY
12'-0"

EXISTING

RECEIVING

EXISTING

COMPACTOR EXISTING
DOCK

LOADING
25'-0"

FLETCHER PARKWAY EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT

LA MESA, CA
#469
24 30
12 37
15 13
17 40
6 9
6 4
5 3
4 C B A
1 2
D

FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV

CLEAN AIR /

VANPOOL
VAN
VAN

EXISTING
ELECT.

EXISTING
ELECT. PANELS
10 40
NO VAN

PARKING
NO

RK AP ING
18 NO

PARKING
VAN
VAN
5 NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
NO

PARKING
VAN

THIS AREA IS UNDER SEPARATE
ADA UPGRADE PERMIT #B22-051

FLETCHER PARKWAY

VICINITY MAP

JACKSON DRIVE

EL CAJON BLVD

LA MESA
COSTCO
EAST 8

BALTIMORE DRIVE
8 0 30' 60' 120'
1" = 60'-0"

LA MESA, CA
#469

COSTCO WHOLESALE DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
8125 FLETCHER PKWY.

LA MESA, CA 91942
91-1400-33
AUGUST 30, 2022

DEMOLITION

SITE PLAN
Conceptual Demolition Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 5
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
30 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12 10 8 7 6 5 4 2 1
12 11 9 7 6 5 4 3 1.1 1

9.9 G
F
E
D
C
B
A
56' D-5 ISLAND

ENTRANCE
EXIT

MEMBERSHIP

COUNTER
335 SF

BATTERY

CHARGERS

COMPACTOR

STORAGE
94 SF

JANITOR
55 SF
R.R.

DRESSING
R.R.

R.T.V.

CAGE
286 SF

PRODUCE
COOLER
1,486 SF
MEAT
COOLER
1,096 SF
MEAT
PREP.
1,254 SF

FREEZER
360 SF
COOLER
197 SF
BAKERY
2256 SF

OPTICAL
KIOSK
554 SF
FOOD

SERVICE
1,056 SF
RECEPT
161 SF
EXAM
136 SF
TIRE
SALES
2,569 SF
JAN.
33 SF
R.R.
99 SF
TIRE

INSTALLATION
2,324 SF
40' D-5 CASES
16' D-5 CASES CAKE
90'-0" 12'-3" 5'-2"
10'-10" 10'-11" 10'-0" 10'-0" 12'-10" 10'-0" 12'-9"
68'-0" 72'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 54'-0" 54'-0" 54'-0" 60'-0" 434'-0"
36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 37'-0"
217'-0"
37'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0" 31'-0" 320'-0"
57'-6" 47'-0" 36'-0" 54'-0" 54'-0" 45'-0" 21'-0" 48'-0" 434'-0"

EYEWASH
8' HED
GREASE

INTERCEPTOR

ROTISSERIE
PREP
105 SF
UP
56' D-5 ISLAND
P.O.S.

DAIRY
21'-6" HT.
8' D-5
CASE
8' M-1 CASE 60' M-1 CASE
10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0" 15' STEEL 15' STEEL 15' STEEL 15' STEEL

BALER COMPACTOR

TRANSFORMER

EYEWASH
GREASE

INTERCEPTOR
56' D-5 ISLAND
56' M-1 ISLAND
48' M-1 ISLAND
WOMEN

RESTROOM
395 SF
MEN

RESTROOM
395 SF
EDP
171 SF

EMPLOYEE

LOCKER ROOM
370 SF
P.O.S. FREEZER 21'-6" HT.

ROTISSERIE
341 SF
POS
SALES
COOLER

RELOCATE CENTER SECTION
7'-8" TOWARD RECEIVING
5' STEEL

RECEIVING

LAB PHARMACY

PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES
15' STEEL
15' STEEL15' STEEL
15' STEEL 15' STEEL 15' STEEL
FIRE

SPRINKLER
RISERS
15' STEEL 15' STEEL 15' STEEL

OUTDOOR

FOOD SERVICE

SEATING AREA
POS
SALES
COOLER
5' STEEL
5' STEEL
5' STEEL
5' STEEL
5' STEEL
71'-6"
M.P.U.
177 SF
MGR.
173 SF
OFFICE
415 SF
VAULT
140 SF
1,425 SF
DELI /

DISH PREP
563 SF
1,226 SF 1,397SF
1,000 SF

HEARING
CENTER
413 SF
DEMO
QUIET

MEZZANINE

LOCKER ROOM

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
DN
LEGEND

EXISTING
NEW
© MG2. All rights reserved. No part of t
any form or by any means without perm

COSTCO WHOLESALE CONCEPT DEMOLITION PLAN
L A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A A U G U S T 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 8125 FLETCHE

LA MESA,
91-1400-33
AUGUST 30

CONCEPT

DEMOLITIO
DD22
LA MES
#4
SCALE:

DEMOLITION
MEZZANINE 1/16" = 1'-0"
0 8' 16
1/16" = 1'-0"
Conceptual Demolition Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 6
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
32 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LOT 2
MAP 13346

FLETCHER PKWY

EXISTING

COSTCO WHOLESALE
(FF 469.87)
LOT 1
MAP 13346

EXISTING COSTCO WHOLESALE
(FF 469.87)

70.09FG 70.09FG
(FF 469.87)
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS

PER SEPARATE PERMIT
LEGEND: QTY.

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

E N G I N E E R I N G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com

LA MESA, CA
#469
© MG2. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from MG2.

COSTCO WHOLESALE

L A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A A U G U S T
AUGUST
91-1400-33
C2.0
EASEMENTS WITHIN SURVEY:

SECTION

CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN

CONCEPTUAL

GRADING PLAN
1"=200'

KEY MAP
C2.0
2 9 , 2 0 2 2
29, 2022
Conceptual Grading Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 7
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
34 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LOT 2
MAP 13346

FLETCHER PKWY

EXISTING

COSTCO WHOLESALE
(FF 469.87)
LOT 1
MAP 13346
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS

PER SEPARATE PERMIT
LEGEND:

CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

E N G I N E E R I N G
6390 Greenwich Dr., Suite 170
San Diego, California 92122
tel 858.554.1500 fax 858.597.0335
www.fuscoe.com

LA MESA, CA
#469
© MG2. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from MG2.

COSTCO WHOLESALE

L A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A A U G U S T
AUGUST
91-1400-33
C2.1
EASEMENTS WITHIN SURVEY:

CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN

CONCEPTUAL

UTILITY PLAN
1"=200'

KEY MAP
C2.1
2 9 , 2 0 2 2
29, 2022
Conceptual Utility Plan
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 8
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
36 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

6 7
0'-0" A.F.F.

E.I.F.S. FINISH, TYP.

EXPANSION
JOINTS, TYP.

STANDING SEAM
MTL. ROOF
11 12 10 1 2 4 5 8
30'-8" A.F.F.
19'-4" A.F.F.

SCORED SPLIT FACE BLOCK
WALL (1 SIDE ONLY)

PRECISION CMU &
PAINTED MTL. CAP
E.I.F.S. FINISH

A B C D H J
0'-0" A.F.F.
10'-0" 10'-0"

RECEIVING

PRECISION CMU & SPLIT FACE CMU
PAINTED MTL. CAP

STANDING SEAM
MTL. ROOF
CONC. WALL

E F G K
30'-8" A.F.F.
19'-4" A.F.F.
10'-0" A.F.F.
2'-0"
6'-0"
1'-4"
1'-4"
PAINTED GALV. SHT.

METAL TYP.

E.I.F.S. FINISH

PRECISION CMU
E.I.F.S. FINISH TYP. SCORED SPLIT FACE CMU
10 12 1 2 4 8
19'-4" A.F.F.

PAINTED GALV. SHT. METAL
TYP. TO MATCH EXISTING

SEISMIC JOINT TO

MATCH EXISTING
11 TYP.
3 TYP.
3 TYP. TYP.
4 TYP.
8 TYP.
5 6 7
30'-8" A.F.F.
0'-0" A.F.F.

SCORED SPLIT FACE BLOCK
WALL (1 SIDE ONLY)

DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE
TYP. TO MATCH EXISTING
TYP.

E.I.F.S. FINISH, TYP.

PRECISION CMU &
PAINTED MTL. CAP

EXPANSION
JOINTS, TYP.

STANDING SEAM
MTL. ROOF
E.I.F.S. FINISH REVEALS TYP. TO MATCH

EXISTING
1 4 TYP. 2
4 TYP.
3 TYP. TYP.
3 5
9 TYP.

TYP.
2 8
TYP.
10 2
DD34-19
1 DD34-19
D F G
0'-0" A.F.F.
19'-4" A.F.F.
2'-0"
6'-0"
1'-4"
1'-4"

RECEIVING

SPLIT FACE CMU

PRECISION CMU

SCORED SPLIT FACE CMU
CONC. WALL
8" CMU BLOCK WITH

CENTER SCORE
BIOFILTRATION PLANTER TYP.
3 TYP.

TYP.
1 5 TYP. 2 TYP.

TYP.
8 TYP.

AA B C E H J K
30'-8" A.F.F.
10'-0" A.F.F.
10'-0" 10'-0"
PAINTED GALV. SHT.

METAL TYP.

E.I.F.S. FINISH
A
3 TYP.
4 REVEALS TYP. TO

MATCH EXISTING
4 TYP.
3 25'-3 1/2"
10 9 TYP. 9 TYP.
3 DD34-19
2 DD34-19 SIM.
12 6 5 4
30'-8" A.F.F.
0'-0" A.F.F.
10'-0" 10'-0"
23'-4" A.F.F.

SCORED SPLIT FACE CMU
24'-8" A.F.F.
25'-0" A.F.F.
11 9 7 3 1 2'-0" 6'-0" 1'-4" 1'-4"
26'-0" A.F.F.

PRECISION CMU &
PAINTED MTL. CAP
PAINTED GALV. SHT.

METAL TYP.

SPLIT FACE CMU LIGHT FIXTURE TYP.

PRECISION CMU

EMBOSSED METAL

REFRIGERATION PANELS,

COLOR - WHITE
10'-0" A.F.F.
9 TYP.

LA M
#
1 SCALE:

NORTH DEMOLITION ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"
3 SCALE:

WEST DEMOLITION ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"
© MG2. All rights reserved. No p
any form or by any means withou

COSTCO WHOLESALE CONCEPT ELEVATIONS
L A M E S A , C A L I F O R N I A A U G U S T 3 0 , 2 0 2 2 8125 FLETC
LA MES
91-1400-3
AUGUST
CONCEP

ELEVATIO
DD3
0 8'
1/16" = 1'-
2 SCALE:

NORTH CONCEPT ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"
4 SCALE:

WEST CONCEPT ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"
5 SCALE:

SOUTH CONCEPT ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0"
LEGEND

EXISTING

DEMOLITION
NEW
4 PILASTER E.I.F.S SYSTEM SW #6015 DIVINE WHITE

TO MATCH EXISTING
3 CMU 4" CMU VENEER SPLIT

FACE CENTER SCORE

NATURAL GRAY

TO MATCH EXISTING
2 CMU (3) 8" H. COURSES

OFF-WHITE PRECISION

NATURAL GRAY

TO MATCH EXISTING
# MATERIAL FINISH COLOR

WALL MATERIALS

EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
1 CMU SPLIT FACE NATURAL GRAY

TO MATCH EXISTING
5 FASCIA PRE-FINISHED SW COSTCO

SAFETY RED
6 COSTCO SIGN SW COSTCO

SAFETY RED
7 WHOLESALE SIGN SW 1805

LAPIS LAZULI
8 TRIM PRECAST CONCRETE

BULLNOSE CAP

TO MATCH EXISTING
9 SECURITY WALL PACK TO MATCH EXISTING
10 NEW STANDING SEAM

METAL ROOF

COSTCO SAFETY RED TO MATCH EXISTING
11 CMU (3) 8" H. COURSES

PRECISION BLOCK

PAINTED

COSTCO RED
Concept Elevations
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 9
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
38 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

AUGUST 30
Colored Concept Elevations A U G U S T 3 0 , 2 0 2 2
Costco Warehouse Expansion Project
FIGURE 10
Path: \\dudek.int\data\GISData\Projects\j1379501\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Addendum SOURCE:Costco 2022

COSTCO WAREHOUSE EXPANSION PROJECT / ADDENDUM
13795
40 MARCH 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Attachment A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Outputs

La Mesa Costco Addendum
San Diego Air Basin, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total project sq-ft obtained from addendum project description.

Construction Phase - CalEEMod default phase and schedule assumptions. Start date provided by PM team.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod default equipment assumptions.

Grading - Total earth material import volume provided in the 2021-24 Environmental Form 2021-05-26.pdf document.

Demolition - Per the the 2021-24 Environmental Form 2021-05-26.pdf document, no demolition required.

Trips and VMT - CalEEMod default construction trip assumptions.

On-road Fugitive Dust - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Architectural Coating - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Vehicle Trips - Existing ADT estimated using trip rates from Murrieta Costco EIR (Kittleson & Assoc Mar 2020): 81.9 trips/ksf wk & 112.3/ksf wknd. According to the traffic memo for proposed (Kittelson & Assoc Dec 2020), expansion will result in 1.8% increase in ADT.

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Regional Shopping Center 17.90 1000sqft 0.41 17,898.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
13 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) 40

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
539.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Fleet Mix - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Road Dust - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Woodstoves - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Consumer Products - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Area Coating - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Landscape Equipment - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Energy Use - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Water And Wastewater - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Solid Waste - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Operational Off-Road Equipment - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers EF - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - User Defined - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Land Use Change - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Sequestration - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Area Mitigation - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 250.00 100.00
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 250 100
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 650.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0809 0.3930 0.4345 7.7000e0040.0106 0.0189 0.0295 3.9500e0030.0175 0.0214 0.0000 68.0288 68.0288 0.0187 8.9000e00468.7630 Maximum 0.0809 0.3930 0.4345 7.7000e0040.0106 0.0189 0.0295 3.9500e0030.0175 0.0214 0.0000 68.0288 68.0288 0.0187 8.9000e00468.7630 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0809 0.3930 0.4345 7.7000e0040.0106 0.0189 0.0295 3.9500e0030.0175 0.0214 0.0000 68.0287 68.0287 0.0187 8.9000e00468.7630 Maximum 0.0809 0.3930 0.4345 7.7000e0040.0106 0.0189 0.0295 3.9500e0030.0175 0.0214 0.0000 68.0287 68.0287 0.0187 8.9000e00468.7630 Mitigated Construction
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.12 15.09
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 21.10 15.09
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 11.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 0.2348 0.2348
2 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 0.2358 0.2358
Highest 0.2358 0.2358

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Energy 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 55.6900 55.6900 3.3100e0034.4000e00455.9027 Mobile 0.0877 0.0858 0.7155 1.3600e0030.1429 1.1100e0030.1440 0.0382 1.0300e0030.0392 0.0000 127.7717 127.7717 0.0105 6.4400e003129.9535 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.8142 0.0000 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4207 6.4400 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688 Total 0.1620 0.0877 0.7173 1.3700e0030.1429 1.2600e0030.1442 0.0382 1.1800e0030.0393 4.2349 189.9020 194.1369 0.2829 7.9500e003203.5749 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Energy 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 55.6900 55.6900 3.3100e0034.4000e00455.9027 Mobile 0.0877 0.0858 0.7155 1.3600e0030.1429 1.1100e0030.1440 0.0382 1.0300e0030.0392 0.0000 127.7717 127.7717 0.0105 6.4400e003129.9535 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.8142 0.0000 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4207 6.4400 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688 Total 0.1620 0.0877 0.7173 1.3700e0030.1429 1.2600e0030.1442 0.0382 1.1800e0030.0393 4.2349 189.9020 194.1369 0.2829 7.9500e003203.5749 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2023 1/13/2023 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/14/2023 1/16/2023 5 1 3 Grading Grading 1/17/2023 1/18/2023 5 2
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/19/2023 6/7/2023 5 100 5 Paving Paving 6/8/2023 6/14/2023 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/15/2023 6/21/2023 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Grading Graders 1 6.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 26,847; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,949; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.2300e0030.0289 0.0370 6.0000e0051.4100e0031.4100e0031.3500e0031.3500e0030.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e0040.0000 5.2328 Total 3.2300e0030.0289 0.0370 6.0000e0051.4100e0031.4100e0031.3500e0031.3500e0030.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e0040.0000 5.2328 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 81.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 5 6.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3213 0.3213 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3241 Total 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3213 0.3213 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3241 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
Off-Road 3.2300e0030.0289 0.0370 6.0000e0051.4100e0031.4100e0031.3500e0031.3500e0030.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e0040.0000 5.2328 Total 3.2300e0030.0289 0.0370 6.0000e0051.4100e0031.4100e0031.3500e0031.3500e0030.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e0040.0000 5.2328 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3213 0.3213 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3241 Total 1.4000e0049.0000e0051.1400e0030.0000 4.0000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.1000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.3213 0.3213 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.3241 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e0040.0000 2.7000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.7000e0043.0900e0031.9600e0030.0000 1.1000e0041.1000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0040.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4309 Total 2.7000e0043.0900e0031.9600e0030.0000 2.7000e0041.1000e0043.8000e0043.0000e0051.0000e0041.3000e0040.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 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
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e0040.0000 2.7000e0043.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.7000e0043.0900e0031.9600e0030.0000 1.1000e0041.1000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0040.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4309 Total 2.7000e0043.0900e0031.9600e0030.0000 2.7000e0041.1000e0043.8000e0043.0000e0051.0000e0041.3000e0040.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e0040.0000 0.4309 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.3600e0030.0000 5.3600e0032.5800e0030.0000 2.5800e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.3000e0040.0102 5.5500e0031.0000e0054.2000e0044.2000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0040.0000 1.2381 1.2381 4.0000e0040.0000 1.2481 Total 9.3000e0040.0102 5.5500e0031.0000e0055.3600e0034.2000e0045.7800e0032.5800e0033.9000e0042.9700e0030.0000 1.2381 1.2381 4.0000e0040.0000 1.2481 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 9.0000e0055.5000e0031.4600e0032.0000e0056.9000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.3000e0040.0000 2.4306 2.4306 1.2000e0043.9000e0042.5488 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 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.8000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0519 Total 1.1000e0045.5100e0031.6400e0032.0000e0057.5000e0045.0000e0058.0000e0042.1000e0044.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 2.4820 2.4820 1.2000e0043.9000e0042.6007 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
Fugitive Dust 5.3600e0030.0000 5.3600e0032.5800e0030.0000 2.5800e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.3000e0040.0102 5.5500e0031.0000e0054.2000e0044.2000e0043.9000e0043.9000e0040.0000 1.2381 1.2381 4.0000e0040.0000 1.2481 Total 9.3000e0040.0102 5.5500e0031.0000e0055.3600e0034.2000e0045.7800e0032.5800e0033.9000e0042.9700e0030.0000 1.2381 1.2381 4.0000e0040.0000 1.2481 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 9.0000e0055.5000e0031.4600e0032.0000e0056.9000e0045.0000e0057.4000e0041.9000e0044.0000e0052.3000e0040.0000 2.4306 2.4306 1.2000e0043.9000e0042.5488 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 2.0000e0051.0000e0051.8000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0514 0.0514 0.0000 0.0000 0.0519 Total 1.1000e0045.5100e0031.6400e0032.0000e0057.5000e0045.0000e0058.0000e0042.1000e0044.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 2.4820 2.4820 1.2000e0043.9000e0042.6007 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0316 0.3209 0.3549 5.7000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0147 0.0147 0.0000 50.1042 50.1042 0.0162 0.0000 50.5093 Total 0.0316 0.3209 0.3549 5.7000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0147 0.0147 0.0000 50.1042 50.1042 0.0162 0.0000 50.5093 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.8000e0046.6600e0032.3500e0033.0000e0051.0000e0034.0000e0051.0400e0032.9000e0044.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 3.0098 3.0098 9.0000e0054.4000e0043.1420 Worker 8.1000e0045.6000e0046.8600e0032.0000e0052.4100e0031.0000e0052.4200e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 1.9275 1.9275 6.0000e0055.0000e0051.9448 Total 9.9000e0047.2200e0039.2100e0035.0000e0053.4100e0035.0000e0053.4600e0039.3000e0045.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 4.9373 4.9373 1.5000e0044.9000e0045.0867 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
Off-Road 0.0316 0.3209 0.3549 5.7000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0147 0.0147 0.0000 50.1042 50.1042 0.0162 0.0000 50.5093 Total 0.0316 0.3209 0.3549 5.7000e0040.0160 0.0160 0.0147 0.0147 0.0000 50.1042 50.1042 0.0162 0.0000 50.5093 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.8000e0046.6600e0032.3500e0033.0000e0051.0000e0034.0000e0051.0400e0032.9000e0044.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 3.0098 3.0098 9.0000e0054.4000e0043.1420 Worker 8.1000e0045.6000e0046.8600e0032.0000e0052.4100e0031.0000e0052.4200e0036.4000e0041.0000e0056.5000e0040.0000 1.9275 1.9275 6.0000e0055.0000e0051.9448 Total 9.9000e0047.2200e0039.2100e0035.0000e0053.4100e0035.0000e0053.4600e0039.3000e0045.0000e0059.8000e0040.0000 4.9373 4.9373 1.5000e0044.9000e0045.0867 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.5300e0030.0138 0.0176 3.0000e0056.6000e0046.6000e0046.2000e0046.2000e0040.0000 2.3498 2.3498 6.8000e0040.0000 2.3669 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5300e0030.0138 0.0176 3.0000e0056.6000e0046.6000e0046.2000e0046.2000e0040.0000 2.3498 2.3498 6.8000e0040.0000 2.3669 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.2000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2891 0.2891 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2917 Total 1.2000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2891 0.2891 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2917 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
Off-Road 1.5300e0030.0138 0.0176 3.0000e0056.6000e0046.6000e0046.2000e0046.2000e0040.0000 2.3498 2.3498 6.8000e0040.0000 2.3669 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.5300e0030.0138 0.0176 3.0000e0056.6000e0046.6000e0046.2000e0046.2000e0040.0000 2.3498 2.3498 6.8000e0040.0000 2.3669 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.2000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2891 0.2891 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2917 Total 1.2000e0048.0000e0051.0300e0030.0000 3.6000e0040.0000 3.6000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2891 0.2891 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2917 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.8000e0043.2600e0034.5300e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6393 Total 0.0420 3.2600e0034.5300e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6393 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 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
Archit. Coating 0.0415 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.8000e0043.2600e0034.5300e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6393 Total 0.0420 3.2600e0034.5300e0031.0000e0051.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0041.8000e0040.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6393 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0161 0.0161 0.0000 0.0000 0.0162 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0877 0.0858 0.7155 1.3600e0030.1429 1.1100e0030.1440 0.0382 1.0300e0030.0392 0.0000 127.7717 127.7717 0.0105 6.4400e003129.9535 Unmitigated 0.0877 0.0858 0.7155 1.3600e0030.1429 1.1100e0030.1440 0.0382 1.0300e0030.0392 0.0000 127.7717 127.7717 0.0105 6.4400e003129.9535

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Regional Shopping Center 197.06 270.08 270.08 382,082 382,082 Total 197.06 270.08 270.08 382,082 382,082
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 Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Regional Shopping Center 0.557888 0.062607 0.178921 0.119061 0.024112 0.006269 0.008734 0.006266 0.000708 0.000566 0.028949 0.000971 0.004949 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 53.5697 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 53.5697 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698 NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
39733.6 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329 Total 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329 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
Regional
Shopping Center
39733.6 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329 Total 2.1000e0041.9500e0031.6400e0031.0000e0051.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0041.5000e0040.0000 2.1203 2.1203 4.0000e0054.0000e0052.1329 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
218714 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698
Total 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center
218714 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698
Total 53.5697 3.2700e0034.0000e00453.7698
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Unmitigated 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004

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

4.1500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0699 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0050.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Total 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

4.1500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0699 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0050.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Total 0.0741 0.0000 1.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.2000e0043.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 3.4000e004 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688
Unmitigated 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688

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

1.3259 /

0.812647

6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688
Total 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

1.3259 /

0.812647

6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688
Total 6.8606 0.0436 1.0700e0038.2688
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Unmitigated 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

18.79 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Total 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Regional
Shopping Center

18.79 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Total 3.8142 0.2254 0.0000 9.4495
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 2/11/2022 1:14 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

La Mesa Costco Addendum
San Diego Air Basin, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Total project sq-ft obtained from addendum project description.

Construction Phase - CalEEMod default phase and schedule assumptions. Start date provided by PM team.

Off-road Equipment - CalEEMod default equipment assumptions.

Grading - Total earth material import volume provided in the 2021-24 Environmental Form 2021-05-26.pdf document.

Demolition - Per the the 2021-24 Environmental Form 2021-05-26.pdf document, no demolition required.

Trips and VMT - CalEEMod default construction trip assumptions.

On-road Fugitive Dust - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Architectural Coating - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Vehicle Trips - Existing ADT estimated using trip rates from Murrieta Costco EIR (Kittleson & Assoc Mar 2020): 81.9 trips/ksf wk & 112.3/ksf wknd. According to the traffic memo for proposed (Kittelson & Assoc Dec 2020), expansion will result in 1.8% increase in ADT.

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Regional Shopping Center 17.90 1000sqft 0.41 17,898.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
13 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) 40

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company San Diego Gas & Electric
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
539.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Vehicle Emission Factors - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Fleet Mix - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Road Dust - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Woodstoves - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Consumer Products - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Area Coating - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Landscape Equipment - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Energy Use - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Water And Wastewater - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Solid Waste - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Operational Off-Road Equipment - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers EF - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Stationary Sources - User Defined - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Land Use Change - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Sequestration - CalEEMod default assumptions.

Area Mitigation - SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 250.00 100.00
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 250 100
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 650.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
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
2023 16.7858 15.4904 7.6333 0.0389 6.1317 0.4654 6.5971 2.7871 0.4298 3.2169 0.0000 4,102.372 8 4,102.372
8 0.5780 0.4274 4,244.175
5 Maximum 16.7858 15.4904 7.6333 0.0389 6.1317 0.4654 6.5971 2.7871 0.4298 3.2169 0.0000 4,102.372 8 4,102.372
8 0.5780 0.4274 4,244.175
5 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
2023 16.7858 15.4904 7.6333 0.0389 6.1317 0.4654 6.5971 2.7871 0.4298 3.2169 0.0000 4,102.372 8 4,102.372
8 0.5780 0.4274 4,244.175
5 Maximum 16.7858 15.4904 7.6333 0.0389 6.1317 0.4654 6.5971 2.7871 0.4298 3.2169 0.0000 4,102.372 8 4,102.372
8 0.5780 0.4274 4,244.175
5 Mitigated Construction
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 46.12 15.09
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 21.10 15.09
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 11.01
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Energy 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Mobile 0.6316 0.5450 4.7643 9.6200e0030.9968 7.5400e0031.0044 0.2655 7.0300e0030.2726 996.3994 996.3994 0.0752 0.0462 1,012.057 4 Total 1.0387 0.5557 4.7751 9.6800e0030.9968 8.3600e0031.0052 0.2655 7.8500e0030.2734 1,009.210 3 1,009.210
3 0.0755 0.0465 1,024.944
6 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 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Energy 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Mobile 0.6316 0.5450 4.7643 9.6200e0030.9968 7.5400e0031.0044 0.2655 7.0300e0030.2726 996.3994 996.3994 0.0752 0.0462 1,012.057 4 Total 1.0387 0.5557 4.7751 9.6800e0030.9968 8.3600e0031.0052 0.2655 7.8500e0030.2734 1,009.210 3 1,009.210
3 0.0755 0.0465 1,024.944
6 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2023 1/13/2023 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/14/2023 1/16/2023 5 1 3 Grading Grading 1/17/2023 1/18/2023 5 2
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/19/2023 6/7/2023 5 100 5 Paving Paving 6/8/2023 6/14/2023 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/15/2023 6/21/2023 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 26,847; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,949; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Grading Graders 1 6.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 81.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 5 6.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 1,148.405 5 1,148.405
5 0.2089 1,153.629
0 Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 1,148.405 5 1,148.405
5 0.2089 1,153.629
0 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
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 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 Worker 0.0274 0.0170 0.2406 7.3000e0040.0822 4.4000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.1000e0040.0222 74.2854 74.2854 1.9900e0031.8300e00374.8801 Total 0.0274 0.0170 0.2406 7.3000e0040.0822 4.4000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.1000e0040.0222 74.2854 74.2854 1.9900e0031.8300e00374.8801 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 0.0000 1,148.405 5 1,148.405
5 0.2089 1,153.629
0 Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 0.0000 1,148.405 5 1,148.405
5 0.2089 1,153.629
0 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
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 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 Worker 0.0274 0.0170 0.2406 7.3000e0040.0822 4.4000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.1000e0040.0222 74.2854 74.2854 1.9900e0031.8300e00374.8801 Total 0.0274 0.0170 0.2406 7.3000e0040.0822 4.4000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.1000e0040.0222 74.2854 74.2854 1.9900e0031.8300e00374.8801 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e0030.2266 0.2266 0.2084 0.2084 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517 Total 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e0030.5303 0.2266 0.7568 0.0573 0.2084 0.2657 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517 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
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 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 Worker 0.0137 8.4900e0030.1203 3.6000e0040.0411 2.2000e0040.0413 0.0109 2.0000e0040.0111 37.1427 37.1427 9.9000e0049.1000e00437.4400 Total 0.0137 8.4900e0030.1203 3.6000e0040.0411 2.2000e0040.0413 0.0109 2.0000e0040.0111 37.1427 37.1427 9.9000e0049.1000e00437.4400 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e0030.2266 0.2266 0.2084 0.2084 0.0000 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517 Total 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e0030.5303 0.2266 0.7568 0.0573 0.2084 0.2657 0.0000 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517 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
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 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 Worker 0.0137 8.4900e0030.1203 3.6000e0040.0411 2.2000e0040.0413 0.0109 2.0000e0040.0111 37.1427 37.1427 9.9000e0049.1000e00437.4400 Total 0.0137 8.4900e0030.1203 3.6000e0040.0411 2.2000e0040.0413 0.0109 2.0000e0040.0111 37.1427 37.1427 9.9000e0049.1000e00437.4400 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 5.3576 0.0000 5.3576 2.5755 0.0000 2.5755 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.9335 10.1789 5.5516 0.0141 0.4201 0.4201 0.3865 0.3865 1,364.771 3 1,364.771
3 0.4414 1,375.806
2 Total 0.9335 10.1789 5.5516 0.0141 5.3576 0.4201 5.7777 2.5755 0.3865 2.9620 1,364.771 3 1,364.771
3 0.4414 1,375.806
2 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
Hauling 0.0917 5.2980 1.4554 0.0242 0.7084 0.0450 0.7533 0.1942 0.0430 0.2372 2,678.173 2 2,678.173
2 0.1350 0.4259 2,808.465
2 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 Worker 0.0219 0.0136 0.1925 5.8000e0040.0657 3.5000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 59.4283 59.4283 1.5900e0031.4600e00359.9041 Total 0.1136 5.3116 1.6479 0.0248 0.7741 0.0453 0.8194 0.2116 0.0434 0.2549 2,737.601 5 2,737.601
5 0.1366 0.4274 2,868.369
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 5.3576 0.0000 5.3576 2.5755 0.0000 2.5755 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.9335 10.1789 5.5516 0.0141 0.4201 0.4201 0.3865 0.3865 0.0000 1,364.771 3 1,364.771
3 0.4414 1,375.806
2 Total 0.9335 10.1789 5.5516 0.0141 5.3576 0.4201 5.7777 2.5755 0.3865 2.9620 0.0000 1,364.771 3 1,364.771
3 0.4414 1,375.806
2 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
Hauling 0.0917 5.2980 1.4554 0.0242 0.7084 0.0450 0.7533 0.1942 0.0430 0.2372 2,678.173 2 2,678.173
2 0.1350 0.4259 2,808.465
2 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 Worker 0.0219 0.0136 0.1925 5.8000e0040.0657 3.5000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 59.4283 59.4283 1.5900e0031.4600e00359.9041 Total 0.1136 5.3116 1.6479 0.0248 0.7741 0.0453 0.8194 0.2116 0.0434 0.2549 2,737.601 5 2,737.601
5 0.1366 0.4274 2,868.369
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 1,104.608 9 1,104.608
9 0.3573 1,113.540
2 Total 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 1,104.608 9 1,104.608
9 0.3573 1,113.540
2 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
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 Vendor 3.5800e0030.1286 0.0463 6.1000e0040.0203 7.8000e0040.0211 5.8500e0037.5000e0046.6000e00366.3141 66.3141 2.0100e0039.6000e00369.2257 Worker 0.0164 0.0102 0.1444 4.4000e0040.0493 2.7000e0040.0496 0.0131 2.4000e0040.0133 44.5712 44.5712 1.1900e0031.1000e00344.9281 Total 0.0200 0.1388 0.1907 1.0500e0030.0696 1.0500e0030.0707 0.0189 9.9000e0040.0199 110.8853 110.8853 3.2000e0030.0107 114.1537 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 0.0000 1,104.608 9 1,104.608
9 0.3573 1,113.540
2 Total 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 0.0000 1,104.608 9 1,104.608
9 0.3573 1,113.540
2 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
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 Vendor 3.5800e0030.1286 0.0463 6.1000e0040.0203 7.8000e0040.0211 5.8500e0037.5000e0046.6000e00366.3141 66.3141 2.0100e0039.6000e00369.2257 Worker 0.0164 0.0102 0.1444 4.4000e0040.0493 2.7000e0040.0496 0.0131 2.4000e0040.0133 44.5712 44.5712 1.1900e0031.1000e00344.9281 Total 0.0200 0.1388 0.1907 1.0500e0030.0696 1.0500e0030.0707 0.0189 9.9000e0040.0199 110.8853 110.8853 3.2000e0030.0107 114.1537 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6112 5.5046 7.0209 0.0113 0.2643 0.2643 0.2466 0.2466 1,036.087 8 1,036.087
8 0.3018 1,043.633
1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.6112 5.5046 7.0209 0.0113 0.2643 0.2643 0.2466 0.2466 1,036.087 8 1,036.087
8 0.3018 1,043.633
1 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
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 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 Worker 0.0492 0.0306 0.4332 1.3100e0030.1479 8.0000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.3000e0040.0400 133.7136 133.7136 3.5800e0033.2900e003134.7841 Total 0.0492 0.0306 0.4332 1.3100e0030.1479 8.0000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.3000e0040.0400 133.7136 133.7136 3.5800e0033.2900e003134.7841 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6112 5.5046 7.0209 0.0113 0.2643 0.2643 0.2466 0.2466 0.0000 1,036.087 8 1,036.087
8 0.3018 1,043.633
1 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.6112 5.5046 7.0209 0.0113 0.2643 0.2643 0.2466 0.2466 0.0000 1,036.087 8 1,036.087
8 0.3018 1,043.633
1 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
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 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 Worker 0.0492 0.0306 0.4332 1.3100e0030.1479 8.0000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.3000e0040.0400 133.7136 133.7136 3.5800e0033.2900e003134.7841 Total 0.0492 0.0306 0.4332 1.3100e0030.1479 8.0000e0040.1487 0.0392 7.3000e0040.0400 133.7136 133.7136 3.5800e0033.2900e003134.7841 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.5915 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 16.7831 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 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
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 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 Worker 2.7300e0031.7000e0030.0241 7.0000e0058.2100e0034.0000e0058.2600e0032.1800e0034.0000e0052.2200e0037.4285 7.4285 2.0000e0041.8000e0047.4880 Total 2.7300e0031.7000e0030.0241 7.0000e0058.2100e0034.0000e0058.2600e0032.1800e0034.0000e0052.2200e0037.4285 7.4285 2.0000e0041.8000e0047.4880 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 16.5915 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 16.7831 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 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
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 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 Worker 2.7300e0031.7000e0030.0241 7.0000e0058.2100e0034.0000e0058.2600e0032.1800e0034.0000e0052.2200e0037.4285 7.4285 2.0000e0041.8000e0047.4880 Total 2.7300e0031.7000e0030.0241 7.0000e0058.2100e0034.0000e0058.2600e0032.1800e0034.0000e0052.2200e0037.4285 7.4285 2.0000e0041.8000e0047.4880 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.6316 0.5450 4.7643 9.6200e0030.9968 7.5400e0031.0044 0.2655 7.0300e0030.2726 996.3994 996.3994 0.0752 0.0462 1,012.057 4 Unmitigated 0.6316 0.5450 4.7643 9.6200e0030.9968 7.5400e0031.0044 0.2655 7.0300e0030.2726 996.3994 996.3994 0.0752 0.0462 1,012.057 4 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Regional Shopping Center 197.06 270.08 270.08 382,082 382,082 Total 197.06 270.08 270.08 382,082 382,082
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 Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Regional Shopping Center 0.557888 0.062607 0.178921 0.119061 0.024112 0.006269 0.008734 0.006266 0.000708 0.000566 0.028949 0.000971 0.004949 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Regional
Shopping Center
108.859 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Total 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Unmitigated 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Regional
Shopping Center

0.108859 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Total 1.1700e0030.0107 8.9600e0036.0000e0058.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e0048.1000e00412.8070 12.8070 2.5000e0042.3000e00412.8831 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.7000e0042.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Total 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3830 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.7000e0042.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Total 0.4059 2.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0053.9200e0033.9200e0031.0000e0054.1700e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 25 Date: 2/11/2022 1:13 PM La Mesa Costco Addendum - San Diego Air Basin, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

Attachment B
Geotechnical Study

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 1 of 1 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
24411 Ridge Route Dr., Suite 225, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 p | 949.727.4466 f | 949.727.9242 May 8, 2020
Kleinfelder Project No.: 20203667.001A
Costco Wholesale
c/o MG2
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92612
Attention: Mr. Terry Odle

Subject: Geotechnical Study
Proposed Building Addition
Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469
8125 Fletcher Parkway
La Mesa, California 91942
Dear Mr. Odle:

Kleinfelder is pleased to present this report summarizing our geotechnical study for the proposed building addition at Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469 located at 8125 Fletcher Parkway in La Mesa, California. The purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 7.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services to you on this project.

If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact Brian Crystal at (949) 727-4466, or Andy Franks, Kleinfelder’s Client Account Manager for Costco, at (480) 650-4905.

Sincerely,

KLEINFELDER
Zachary S. Jarecki, PE Brian E. Crystal, PE, GE
Project Engineer Senior Project Manager

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page i of iv May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY

PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION
COSTCO WHOLESALE WAREHOUSE NO. 469
8125 FLETCHER PARKWAY
LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942
KLEINFELDER PROJECT # 20203667.001A
MAY 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved

ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page ii of iv May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
A Report Prepared for:

Costco Wholesale
c/o MG2
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, California 92612
Attention: Mr. Terry Odle
Geotechnical Study
Proposed Building Addition
Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469
8125 Fletcher Parkway
La Mesa, California 91942
Zachary S. Jarecki, PE
Project Engineer
Paul Guptill, PG, CEG
Principal Engineering Geologist
Brian E. Crystal, PE, GE
Senior Project Manager

KLEINFELDER
24411 Ridge Route Dr., Suite 225
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Phone: 949.727.4466
Fax: 949.727.9242
May 8, 2020
Kleinfelder Project No: 20203667.001A

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page iii of iv May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ E-1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................................................... 1

1.2.1 Task 1 – Background Data Review........................................................... 2

1.2.2 Task 2 – Field Exploration ........................................................................ 2

1.2.3 Task 3 – Laboratory Testing ..................................................................... 3

1.2.4 Task 5 – Geotechnical Analyses and Report Preparation ......................... 3 2 SITE CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 5

2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS ................................................................. 5 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 6

3.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................. 6

3.1.1 Fill ............................................................................................................ 6

3.1.2 Bedrock (Stadium Conglomerate) ............................................................ 6

3.2 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................ 6

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................... 7

3.3.1 Localized Faulting .................................................................................... 7

3.3.2 Flood Hazard ............................................................................................ 7

3.3.3 Landslides ................................................................................................ 7

3.3.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement ........................................................ 8

3.3.5 Expansive Soils ........................................................................................ 8

3.3.6 Subsidence .............................................................................................. 8 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 9

4.1 GENERAL............................................................................................................ 9

4.2 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARMETERS ..................................................... 10

4.3 FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................. 11

4.3.1 Allowable Bearing Pressure.................................................................... 12

4.3.2 Estimated Settlement ............................................................................. 12

4.3.3 Lateral Resistance .................................................................................. 12

4.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK .................................................................................... 12

4.5 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE............................................................................ 13

4.6 SITE DRAINAGE ............................................................................................... 13

4.7 PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 15

4.7.1 Costco Design Parameters ..................................................................... 15

4.7.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ................................................................... 15

4.7.3 Asphalt Performance Grade Binder ........................................................ 16

4.7.4 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement .................................................... 16

4.7.5 Aggregate Base ...................................................................................... 17

4.8 SOIL CORROSION ............................................................................................ 17

4.9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 17 5 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page iv of iv May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................... 19

5.2 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................... 19

5.2.1 General .................................................................................................. 19

5.2.2 Site Preparation ...................................................................................... 19

5.2.3 Fill Material and Compaction Criteria ...................................................... 20

5.2.4 Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................... 21

5.2.5 Temporary Excavations .......................................................................... 21

5.2.6 Trench Backfill ........................................................................................ 22

5.3 UNSTABLE SUBGRADE CONDITIONS ............................................................ 23

5.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK .................................................................................... 23

5.5 PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 24

5.5.1 HMA Design ........................................................................................... 24

5.5.2 Construction Considerations................................................................... 24 6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................. 25

6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW ......................................................... 25

6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................................... 25 7 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................... 26 8 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 28 TABLES
Table 1 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Table 2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
Table 3 Corrosion Test Results
Table 4 Summary of Previously Performed Infiltration Tests (Kleinfelder, 2018)

FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Regional Fault Map and Earthquake Epicenters

APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Explorations
Appendix B Laboratory Testing
Appendix C Infiltration BMP Worksheets

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 E-1 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the proposed building addition project at Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469 located at 8125 Fletcher Parkway in La Mesa, California. The purpose of our study was to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction.

Kleinfelder understands that the project includes constructing a new 17,050-square-foot (sf) addition on the northern and western sides of the existing warehouse. The building addition is located in an area currently occupied by asphalt concrete paving. Our geotechnical study was based on the Costco Wholesale Development Requirements (CWDRs), Version 2018, dated October 26, 2018.

Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling three borings to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Kleinfelder also reviewed our geotechnical report for the new fuel facility recently constructed east of the existing warehouse (Kleinfelder, 2018). In addition, we reviewed portions of the geotechnical report and grading report prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated (1994 and 1997a and b) for the development of the original warehouse and neighboring structure. Subsurface conditions at the location of the proposed building addition consists of fill placed during grading of the site over bedrock of the Stadium Conglomerate Formation. The fill consists generally of silty to clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. As observed in our borings, the fill depth encountered within our borings was approximately 14½ to 17 feet below current site grades near the proposed addition. The fill is underlain by bedrock of the Stadium Conglomerate. The Stadium Conglomerate consists of gravel and cobbles with occasional boulders in a cemented clayey and silty sand matrix. Perched groundwater was encountered at approximately 18 feet bgs within the Stadium Conglomerate during our current exploration. Perched groundwater was also encountered during the initial grading of the site at the top of the Stadium Conglomerate during removal of the alluvial soils (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997a and b).

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 E-2 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this geotechnical report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The following key items were developed from our study. • The proposed building addition may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. In order to mitigate the potential for abrupt differential static settlement at the interface of the additions and existing warehouse building, new foundations should be designed for a reduced allowable bearing pressure, and possibly be tied to the existing warehouse building.
• The anticipated total settlement of the proposed addition is estimated to be on the order of ½ inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco. • For the building pad, we recommend that after the removal of pavement and flatwork that the exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy smooth drum roller. If soft and yielding soil is encountered during the proof roll and cannot be densified, it should be overexcavated and replaced as structural fill.
• Following excavation for foundations, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations. If unsatisfactory material, such as soft or disturbed soil, debris or otherwise unsuitable soil is present at the base of footing excavations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural concrete, 2-sack sand-cement slurry, or structural fill to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. • Granular (sandy) soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557) in accordance with the Costco Wholesale Development Requirements (CWDRs). Due to the difficulty of compacting clayey soils, we do not recommend compacting the onsite soils to 95 percent. Clayey soils should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557) at moisture contents of at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. Compacting clayey soils to at least 92 percent relative compaction will achieve the necessary strength assumed in our design recommendations.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 E-3 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
• It is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon removal of site pavements or flatwork as a result of subsurface moisture becoming trapped beneath relatively impervious asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete surfaces. The contractor should anticipate that pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered during site grading activities, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. Recommendations to stabilize pumping subgrade are provided in Section 5.3.
• Landscape planters should either not be located adjacent to buildings and pavement areas or be isolated and properly drained to area drains such that cycles of wetting and drying do not impact pavements, flatwork, and other structures. Drought resistant plants and minimum watering are recommended for planters, if used. No planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they are water-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet.
• The minimum resistivity of the samples tested indicates that the soil may be extremely corrosive to metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.3.1 (ACI, 2014). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-14, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required. • The potential for storm water infiltration into the subgrade soils was assessed at the subject project site in accordance with the City of La Mesa 2016 BMP Design Manual using Appendix I and I-8 Form. We previously performed three borehole infiltration tests near the fuel facility within the on-site materials (Kleinfelder, 2018). Based on the very low infiltration rates, the results of our laboratory testing, and the clayey fill soils underlain by bedrock with perched groundwater, it is our opinion that the proposed fuel facility site be classified as a feasibility screening category of “No Infiltration.” The completed I-8 Form for the fuel facility site is included in Appendix C of this report.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this executive summary should not be relied upon without consulting our geotechnical report for more detailed description of the geotechnical evaluation performed by Kleinfelder. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 7.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 1 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the proposed building addition project at Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469 located at 8125 Fletcher Parkway in La Mesa, California. The location of the project site is presented on Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map. The purpose of our study was to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. The scope of our services was presented in our proposal titled “Proposal for Geotechnical Study, Proposed Building Addition, Costco Wholesale Warehouse No. 469, 8125 Fletcher Parkway, La Mesa, California 91942,” dated February 4, 2020. Our geotechnical study was based on the Costco Wholesale Development Requirements (CWDRs), Version 2018, dated October 26, 2018.

This report includes a description of the work performed, a discussion of the subsurface and surficial conditions observed at the site, and recommendations developed from our engineering analyses of field and laboratory data.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Kleinfelder understands that the project includes constructing a new 17,050-square-foot (sf) addition on the north and west side of the existing warehouse. The building addition is located in an area currently occupied by asphalt concrete paving. Ancillary construction will include new pavement and reconfiguration of the parking stalls. The locations of the proposed addition is shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Map. We have assumed that typical wall loads will be less than 4.5 kips per lineal foot. The slab load (dead plus sustained live) for the building additions will be on the order of 500 pounds per square (psf).

Grading plans were not provided; however, based on review of the proposed site plan (DD11-14) prepared by MG2, dated January 31, 2020, we anticipate that the finished grades surrounding the addition will generally match the existing grades with maximum grade changes of two feet or less.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our limited geotechnical study consisted of a literature review, subsurface explorations, geotechnical laboratory testing, engineering evaluation and analysis, and preparation of this report. Studies to assess environmental hazards that may affect the soil and groundwater at the site were beyond our geotechnical scope of work. A description of our scope of services performed for the geotechnical portion of the project follows.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 2 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

1.2.1 Task 1 – Background Data Review
We reviewed readily-available published and unpublished geologic literature in our files and the files of public agencies, including selected publications prepared by the California Geological Survey (formerly known as the California Division of Mines and Geology) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). We also reviewed readily available seismic and faulting information, including data for designated earthquake fault zones as well as our in-house database of faulting in the general site vicinity.

Kleinfelder also reviewed our geotechnical report for the fuel facility located east of the existing warehouse (Kleinfelder, 2018). In addition, we reviewed portions of the geotechnical report and grading report prepared by Geotechnics Incorporated (1994 and 1997a and b) for the development of the original warehouse and neighboring structure. The reports were provided to us by the City of La Mesa, and their records did not include the complete version of the referenced reports. Generally, the reports only included the text and did not have appendices, including logs, lab data, or figures. These reports were reviewed and evaluated by Kleinfelder in developing the results presented herein.

1.2.2 Task 2 – Field Exploration
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling three borings to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2.

Prior to commencement of the fieldwork, various geophysical techniques were used at the exploration locations to identify potential conflicts with subsurface structures. Exploration locations were also cleared for buried utilities through Underground Service Alert (USA).

A Kleinfelder engineer supervised the field operations and logged the explorations. Selected bulk and drive samples were retrieved and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. The number of blows necessary to drive a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was recorded. Appendix A presents a description of the field exploration program, exploration logs, and a legend of terms and symbols used on the logs. Soil descriptions used on the logs result from field observations and data, as well as from laboratory test data. Stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil and/or rock types, and the actual transition may vary and can be gradual.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 3 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

1.2.3 Task 3 – Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples to evaluate the physical and engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils. Laboratory testing consisted of in-situ moisture content and dry density, grain-size distribution, Atterberg limits (plasticity index), R-value, and preliminary corrosivity series (pH, minimum resistivity, and soluble sulfate and chloride). A summary of the testing performed, and the test results are presented in Appendix B.

1.2.4 Task 5 – Geotechnical Analyses and Report Preparation We analyzed field and laboratory data in conjunction with the assumed finished grades, facility layouts, and assumed structural loads to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. We evaluated feasible foundation systems, including constructability and compatibility constraints, pavement support, and earthwork. Potential geologic hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction potential, flood hazard, fault rupture hazard, and seismically induced settlement were also evaluated. Seismic design parameters based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) are also presented.

This report summarizes the work performed, data acquired, and our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction. Our report includes the following items:
• Site vicinity map and exploration location map showing the approximate boring locations; • Appendices that include current and previous boring logs and laboratory test results; • Discussion of general site conditions;
• Discussion of general subsurface conditions as encountered in our field exploration conducted for this study;
• Recommendations for seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2019 CBC; • Recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, temporary slope inclinations, fill placement, and compaction specifications;
• Recommendations for the excavation characteristics of subsurface soil deposits; • Recommendations for the UST excavation side slopes, including temporary shoring recommendations;
• Recommendations for foundation design (spread footings), allowable bearing capacities, embedment depths, and settlement estimates under various loading conditions; • Recommendations for support of slabs-on-grade;

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 4 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
• Recommendations for flexible and rigid pavement structural sections for light and heavyduty pavement based on Equivalent Single Axle loading (ESALs), as stated in the CWDRs; and
• Preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 5 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
2 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed building addition is located in the asphalt concrete parking area located on the north and east side of the existing Costco warehouse, as shown in Figure 2. The site is currently bounded by the existing Costco warehouse parking lot to the west, the San Diego trolley line to the south, Fletcher Parkway to the north, and existing retail development to the east.

2.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
Site drainage is currently by sheet flow into on-site catch basins and storm drains, or onto the adjacent bordering streets and into the local storm-drain system.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 6 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The existing surface at the site covered by approximately 3 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by aggregate base. Due to the similarity in the aggregate base to the underlying fill, the thickness of the aggregate base was not able to be determined. Subsurface conditions at the location of the proposed building addition consists of fill placed during grading of the site over bedrock of the Stadium Conglomerate Formation. Figure 3 shows a regional geologic map of the site and surrounding area. A discussion of the subsurface materials encountered is presented in the following sections. Detailed descriptions of the deposits are provided in our boring logs presented in Appendix A.

3.1.1 Fill
Fill soils associated with previous site grading were encountered in our explorations during our field investigation. The fill consists generally of silty to clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. As observed in our borings, the fill depth encountered within our borings was approximately 14½ to 17 feet below current site grades near the proposed addition. Based on a review of the Geotechnics 1997 report (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997a), grading for the building pad was performed by removing the alluvial soils to expose the underlying Stadium Conglomerate materials and replacing the soils as fill.

3.1.2 Bedrock (Stadium Conglomerate)
The fill is underlain by bedrock of the Stadium Conglomerate. The Stadium Conglomerate consists of gravel and cobbles with occasional boulders in a cemented clayey and silty sand matrix.

3.2 GROUNDWATER
Perched groundwater was encountered at approximately 18 feet bgs within the Stadium Conglomerate during our current exploration. Perched groundwater was also encountered during the initial grading of the site at the top of the Stadium Conglomerate during removal of the alluvial soils (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997a and b). According the report, as part of the retail development, a continuous box culvert was constructed to capture groundwater from the Alvarado Canyon Stream. The report notes that future groundwater may become perched above the Stadium Conglomerate due to excessive irrigation, seasonal rainfall, or a combination of these

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 7 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
factors. Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and increased soil moisture content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season.

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

3.3.1 Localized Faulting
The site is not located within or nearby a currently delineated State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018). Additionally, published regional geologic maps do not indicate faults within or nearby the site. The closest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault which is located approximately 8.5 miles southwest of the site. An active fault is a fault that has undergone displacement during the Holocene period, within the past 11,000 years. The closest pre-Holocene fault is the La Nacion fault which is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the site. Nearby faults are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault Map and Earthquake Epicenters. Based on absence of known faults nearby the site, it is our opinion that the hazard with respects to fault rupture is low.

3.3.2 Flood Hazard
The Federal Emergency and Management Administration (FEMA) maintain a collection of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which cover the entire United States. These maps identify those areas which may be subjected to 100-year and 500-year cycle floods. Based on our review of the maps, the site is located within Zone X. Zone X is defined as an area of a 0.2 percent chance of flooding; an area of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; or an area protected by levees from 1 percent annual flood chance. The flood zone is based on our review of FEMA Map Number 06073C1644H (FEMA, 2012).

3.3.3 Landslides
Landslides are ground failures (several tens to hundreds of feet deep) in which a (mass of earth material, including debris and often portions of bedrock) large section of a slope detaches and slides downhill. Landslides are not to be confused with minor surficial slope failures (slumps), which are usually limited to the topsoil zone and can occur on slopes composed of almost any geologic material. Landslides can cause damage to structures both above and below the slide mass.

Structures above the slide area are typically damaged by undermining of foundations. Areas below a slide mass can be damaged by being overridden and crushed by the failed slope material.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 8 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
Because the existing site consists of a relatively level pad with no significant nearby slopes, it is our opinion that the hazard with respects to landslides or other forms of natural slope instability is negligible.

3.3.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
The term liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils temporarily lose shear strength (liquefy) due to increased pore water pressures induced by strong, cyclic ground motions during an earthquake. Structures founded on or above potentially liquefiable soils may experience bearing capacity failures due to the temporary loss of foundation support, vertical settlements (both total and differential), and/or undergo lateral spreading. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction is most prevalent in loose to medium dense, silty, sandy, and gravelly soils below the groundwater table.

Because of subsurface soils at the site are comprised of dense to very dense clayey sands with gravel and cobbles underlain by bedrock and due to the lack of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is not a hazard at the site.

3.3.5 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.

The fill soils in the upper 5 feet generally consisted of clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. Based on previous laboratory testing for the fuel facility (Kleinfelder, 2018) and our experience with the site, the fill soils are anticipated to have a low expansion potential. Our recommendations include mitigation measures for the relatively low expansive soils.

3.3.6 Subsidence
The site is not located in an area of known local ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence or earth fissures occurring at the site due to the withdrawal of oil, gas, or water and impacting the structure is low.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 9 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 GENERAL
Based on the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses conducted during this study, it is our professional opinion that the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction.
• The proposed building addition may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. In order to mitigate the potential for abrupt differential static settlement at the interface of the additions and existing warehouse building, new foundations should be designed for a reduced allowable bearing pressure, and possibly be tied to the existing warehouse building.
• The anticipated total settlement of the proposed addition is estimated to be on the order of ½ inch. Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco. • For the building pad, we recommend that after the removal of pavement and flatwork that the exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy smooth drum roller. If soft and yielding soil is encountered during the proof roll and cannot be densified, it should be overexcavated and replaced as structural fill.
• Following excavation for foundations, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations. If unsatisfactory material, such as soft or disturbed soil, debris or otherwise unsuitable soil is present at the base of footing excavations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural concrete, 2-sack sand-cement slurry, or structural fill to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. • It is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon removal of site pavements or flatwork as a result of subsurface moisture becoming trapped beneath relatively impervious asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete surfaces. The contractor should anticipate that pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered during site grading activities, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. Recommendations to stabilize pumping subgrade are provided in Section 5.3.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 10 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
• Landscape planters should either not be located adjacent to buildings and pavement areas or be isolated and properly drained to area drains such that cycles of wetting and drying do not impact pavements, flatwork, and other structures. Drought resistant plants and minimum watering are recommended for planters, if used. No planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they are water-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet.
• The minimum resistivity of the samples tested indicates that the soil may be extremely corrosive to metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.3.1 (ACI, 2014). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-14, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required. • The potential for storm water infiltration into the subgrade soils was assessed at the subject project site in accordance with the City of La Mesa 2016 BMP Design Manual using Appendix I and I-8 Form. We previously performed three borehole infiltration tests near the proposed fuel facility within the on-site materials (Kleinfelder, 2018). Based on the very low infiltration rates, the results of our laboratory testing, and the clayey fill soils underlain by bedrock with perched groundwater, it is our opinion that the proposed fuel facility site be classified as a feasibility screening category of “No Infiltration.” The completed I-8 Form for the proposed fuel facility site is included in Appendix C of this report.

The following opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on the properties of the materials encountered in the borings, the results of the laboratory-testing program, and our engineering analyses performed. Our recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project are presented in the following sections.

4.2 2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARMETERS
Based on information obtained from our investigation, published geologic literature and maps, and on our interpretation of the ASCE/SEI 7-16 criteria, it is our opinion that the project site may be classified as Site Class D, Stiff Soil. Approximate coordinates for the site are noted below. • Latitude: 32.7739°N
• Longitude: 117.0256°W
In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific ground motion analysis is required for Site Class D sites with an S1 greater than 0.2 g. However, a site-specific ground motion analysis is not required if the seismic response coefficient (Cs) is determined in accordance with

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 11 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
requirements of Chapter 12 and exceptions as noted in Section 11.4.8. The assumption that Cs may be determined in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 12 and exceptions as noted in Section 11.4.8 will be used should be verified by the project structural engineer during final design.

The Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) mapped spectral accelerations for

0.2 seconds and 1 second periods (Ss and S1) were estimated using Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC and the OSHPD seismic design maps web-based application (available at available at https://seismicmaps.org/) The mapped acceleration values and associated soil amplification factors (Fa and Fv) based on the 2019 CBC and corresponding site modified spectral accelerations (SMS and SM1) and design spectral accelerations (SDS and SD1) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters

DESIGN PARAMETER RECOMMENDED VALUE
Site Class D
Ss (g) 0.825
S1 (g) 0.297
Fa 1.17
Fv N/A*
SMS (g) 0.965
SM1 (g) N/A*
SDS (g) 0.643
SD1 (g) N/A*
PGAM (g) 0.444
* N/A = Not Applicable; Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 requires a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis be performed for Site Class D sites with S1 values greater than or equal to 0.2g unless exceptions are taken. If exceptions are taken, then a Fv value of 2.01 could be used only to calculate the Ts value.

4.3 FOUNDATIONS
The proposed building addition may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system.

In order to mitigate the potential for abrupt differential static settlement at the interface of the additions and existing warehouse building, new foundations should be designed for a reduced allowable bearing pressure, and possibly be tied to the existing warehouse building. The decision to tie new foundations to the existing foundations should be evaluated by the structural engineer.

Recommendations for the design and construction of spread footings are presented below.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 12 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

4.3.1 Allowable Bearing Pressure
Footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus sustained live loads. A reduced allowable bearing value has been provided to limit differential static settlement, which may be abrupt between the existing warehouse and proposed improvements. A one-third increase in the bearing value can be used for wind or seismic loads. All footings should be established at a depth of at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The footing dimension and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer.

4.3.2 Estimated Settlement
We estimate total static settlement for foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented above to be approximately ½ inch for the building addition.

Differential settlement will be equal to the total settlement for the building additions and may be abrupt at the interface with the existing warehouse. Wherever new construction abuts existing older construction, small architectural cracking may occur. We suggest you consider using architectural finishes or details to disguise this cold joint area if it is a concern to Costco.

4.3.3 Lateral Resistance
Lateral load resistance may be derived from passive resistance along the vertical sides of the footings, friction acting at the base of the footing, or a combination of the two. An allowable passive resistance of 250 psf per foot of depth may be used for design. Allowable passive resistance values should not exceed 2,500 psf. An allowable coefficient of friction value of 0.35 between the base of the footings and the structural fill soils can be used for sliding resistance using the dead load forces. Friction and passive resistance may be combined without reduction. We recommend that the first foot of soil cover be neglected in the passive resistance calculations if the ground surface is not protected from erosion or disturbance by a slab, pavement or in a similar manner.

4.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted or overexcavated, as recommended in Section 5.2.2. Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least four inches thick. Weakened plane joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Careful control of the water/cement ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing. Unreinforced slabs should not be built in areas where further saturation may occur following construction.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 13 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

4.5 BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE
Concrete slab-on-grade floors are appropriate for the proposed warehouse, provided subgrade is prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.2. In accordance with the CWDRs, we recommend the slab be a minimum nominal thickness of 6 inches and underlain by at least 6 inches of aggregate base material. Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base. Please note that Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base may utilize recycled materials.

The use of recycled material requires Costco’s approval.

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

Based on the geotechnical characteristics of the site, the proposed warehouse can be built with a non-reinforced slab.

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

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

Kleinfelder typically recommends installation of a vapor barrier beneath the slab to mitigate potential moisture issues such as flooring performance and mold. However, we understand that Costco Wholesale has determined that moisture barriers are not to be used in construction of Costco Wholesale warehouses due to adverse effects on concrete curing and performance. Therefore, we have provided construction recommendations that do not include installation of a moisture barrier, with the understanding that there will be an increased risk for adverse moisture issues.

4.6 SITE DRAINAGE
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on proper irrigation and how well runoff water drains from the site. This is especially true for this site where expansive soils subjected to cycles of wetting and drying potentially may cause significant distress to pavements, flatwork, and structures.

As such, we recommend that good drainage be provided away from structures and other improvements as discussed below. Drainage should be maintained both during construction and over the entire life of the project. The ground surface around structures should be graded such that water drains rapidly away from structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to do this depends on the surface type and should follow CWDRs (Costco, 2018).

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 14 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
Due to poor draining subgrade conditions, we recommend drainage inlets and catch basins include pavement underdrains as shown in Detail 16_16 of the CWDRs. Drains should be designed and constructed per Costco’s standard details and laterals should extend at least 15 feet from the catch basins.

We recommend that landscape planters either not be located adjacent to buildings and pavement areas or be isolated and properly drained to area drains such that cycles of wetting and drying do not impact pavements, flatwork, and other structures. Drought resistant plants and minimum watering are recommended for planters, if used. No planters should be installed immediately adjacent to structures unless they are water-proofed and have a drainpipe connected to an area drain outlet.

Planters should be built such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement.

Roof water should be directed to fall on hardscape areas sloping to an area drain, or roof gutters and downspouts should be installed and routed to area drains. Roof downspouts and their associated drains should be isolated from other subdrain systems, where used, to avoid flooding. In any event, maintenance personnel should be instructed to keep areas uniformly moist throughout the life of the project (e.g. limit or eliminate cycles of wetting and drying) as cycles of wetting and drying will cause distress in surrounding improvements. Should excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones and “perched” groundwater may develop. Consequently, the site should be graded so that water drains away readily without saturating the foundation or landscaped areas. Potential sources of water such as water pipes, drains, and the like should be frequently examined for signs of leakage or damage. Any such leakage or damage should be promptly repaired.

Wet utilities should also be designed to be watertight and should be inspected and repaired as needed.

Sewer lines beneath the warehouse should have a sufficient slope (at least 1 percent). Plumbing and utility lines should be provided with flexible joints or oversized sleeves where they penetrate floor slabs to prevent breakage caused by different slab movement. In addition, utility trenches should be plugged with cohesive backfill where they enter the building to reduce moisture infiltration along pipe bedding material. The cohesive backfill materials should have a plasticity index (PI) between 15 and 30 and no less than 70 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 15 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

4.7 PAVEMENTS
The existing surface at the site covered by approximately 3 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete underlain by aggregate base. Due to the similarity in the aggregate base to the underlying fill, the thickness of the aggregate base was not able to be determined. The existing pavement sections should be compatible with current Costco design standards. We have provided new asphalt concrete pavement sections for traffic indices provided in the CWDRs (Costco, 2018). Positive drainage of the paved areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements. Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the subgrade, not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which reduces water infiltration into the base course.

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

4.7.1 Costco Design Parameters
We developed pavement design recommendations using traffic indices provided in the CWDRs (2016) based on the following assumptions:
• A 20-year pavement design life;
• Light-duty pavements subject to 6,600 passenger vehicle trips per year (Traffic Index of

5.0);
• Heavy-duty pavements subject to 30 tractor-trailer truck trips per day (Traffic Index of 7.0); • For asphalt concrete pavements: an R-value of 20 based on laboratory testing and our experience with the onsite clayey soils; and
• For Portland cement concrete (PCC) Pavements: a 28-day flexural strength (modulus of rupture determined by the third-point method) of at least 550 pounds per square inch (psi) (approximate compressive strength of 4,000 psi); a modulus of subgrade reaction (k value) of 150 pounds per square inch per inch (pci); and interlock at the control joints.

4.7.2 Asphalt Concrete Pavement
We have developed new asphalt concrete pavement, also referred to as Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) pavements sections in accordance the Caltrans Highway Design Manual in lieu of the Asphalt Institute Manual Series (MS-1) so that the pavement structural sections are somewhat comparable to the existing sections. Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) should conform to requirements of

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 16 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
the Costco Wholesale Specification Section 321216, Asphalt Paving. Table 2 presents recommended HMA pavement sections. The designer should select the appropriate pavement sections based on project requirements. Prior to placement of aggregate base, pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.2.

Table 2
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
TRAFFIC USE TRAFFIC INDEX, TI ASPHALT CONCRETE *
(INCHES)

AGGREGATE BASE
(INCHES)
Light-Duty Pavement 5.0 3.5 6.0
Heavy-Duty Pavement 7.0 5.0 10.0
*rounded to the nearest ½ inch

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

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

7.0 inches of PCC with 6.0 inches of aggregate base. We understand that Costco is considering paving the American Disability Act (ADA) access area in front of the main entry with PCC pavement. For ADA access area, we recommend that PCC pavement section should be comprised of 6.0 inches of PCC over 6.0 inches of aggregate base.

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

Joint details should conform to PCA guidelines. Expansion joints in concrete slabs should be sealed with petroleum-resistant sealant to prevent minor releases from impacting subsurface soil.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 17 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

4.7.5 Aggregate Base
Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specifications for Class 2 aggregate base and be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base utilizes recycled materials and require Costco’s approval prior to use.

4.8 SOIL CORROSION
A preliminary evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site soils to steel and buried concrete was completed. Laboratory testing was performed on one soil sample to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, chloride and soluble sulfate content. The test results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Corrosion Test Results

BORING DEPTH
(FT)

MINIMUM

RESISTIVITY
(OHM-CM)
PH

SOLUBLE

SULFATE

CONTENT
(PPM)

SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE

CONTENT
(PPM)
B-2 2-5 920 9.3 330 150
These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less, or of a similar corrosive nature. Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than those noted.

Resistivity values less than 1,000 ohm-cm are considered extremely corrosive to buried ferrous metals (NACE, 2006). The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2014). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-14, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required.

Kleinfelder’s scope of services does not include corrosion engineering and, therefore, a detailed analysis of the corrosion test results is not included. We recommend the designer review these results and consult a corrosion expert for further evaluation, if necessary.

4.9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
As discussed previously in the report, the project consists of constructing a new building addition on the north and west side of the existing Costco warehouse. The addition is located in an area currently occupied by asphalt concrete parking and flatwork and underlain by clayey fill soils and Stadium Conglomerate. We have evaluated the feasibility for infiltration within the area based on

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 18 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
the results of our borings, laboratory testing, and previously performed infiltration testing (Kleinfelder, 2018) at the fuel facility located east of the Costco warehouse.

Kleinfelder performed infiltration testing for the recently constructed fuel facility located east of the existing Costco warehouse. The adjusted short-term infiltration rates ranged from approximately

0.03 to 0.16 inches per hour. Based on visual soil classifications and laboratory testing of the three soil samples collected during our field exploration at the percolation test locations, subsurface materials mostly consist of layers of clayey sand with gravel within the depths of the test. The fill soils encountered in our previously performed infiltration tests are similar to the soils encountered during our current exploration and generally consist of clayey sand with gravel.

Appendix B presents the results of sieve analyses performed in the near surface soils during our current exploration and the results are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A. It is our professional opinion that the infiltration results performed during our 2018 geotechnical study for the proposed fuel facility will be similar to the infiltration characteristics of the clayey fill soils encountered within the proposed building addition.

The potential for storm water infiltration into the subgrade soils was assessed at the subject project site in accordance with the City of La Mesa 2016 BMP Design Manual using Appendix I and I-8 Form. Based on the very low infiltration rates from our previous field exploration, the results of our laboratory testing, and bedrock and groundwater conditions, it is our opinion that the proposed building addition site be classified as a feasibility screening category of “No Infiltration.” The completed I-8 Form for the fuel facility site is included in Appendix C of this report.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 19 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
5 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

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

5.2 EARTHWORK

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

The moisture content of the fill is considered very important, and therefore, both relative compaction and moisture content should be used to evaluate compaction acceptance. If both criteria are not within the specified tolerances, the fill should not be accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until the fill is placed within the specified tolerances.

5.2.2 Site Preparation
Abandoned utilities (including any trench backfill), existing pavements, foundations, and other existing improvements within the proposed fuel facility areas should be removed and the excavation(s) backfilled with structural fill. Debris produced by demolition operations, including wood, steel, piping, plastics, etc., should be separated and disposed of off-site. Existing utility pipelines or conduits that extend beyond the limits of the proposed construction and are to be abandoned in place, should be plugged with non-shrinking cement grout to prevent migration of soil and/or water. Demolition, disposal and grading operations should be observed and tested (as appropriate) by a representative of Kleinfelder. Areas to receive fill should be stripped of all dry, loose or soft earth materials and unsuitable fill materials to the satisfaction of a representative of Kleinfelder.
• Building Slab-on-Grade (SOG): We recommend that after the removal of the existing pavement and flatwork that the exposed subgrade should be proof-rolled with a heavy

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 20 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
smooth drum roller. If soft and yielding soil is encountered during the proof roll and cannot be densified, it should be overexcavated and replaced as structural fill. • Building Foundations: Following excavation to the foundation subgrade elevations, the exposed subgrade should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations. If unsatisfactory material, such as soft or disturbed soil, debris or otherwise unsuitable soil is present at the base of footing excavations, it should be overexcavated and replaced with structural concrete, 2-sack sand-cement slurry, or structural fill to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer.
• Pavement, Sidewalks and Other Flatwork Areas: After the area has been stripped of soft earth materials, oversize material, boulders and debris, we recommend that the exposed subgrade be proof-rolled with heavy construction equipment (e.g. loader or smooth-drum roller) to disclose areas of soft and yielding material. Where soft and yielding material is observed, it should be overexcavated and replaced as structural fill. The proof-rolling should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet, if possible.

Based on past experience, it is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon removal of site pavements or flatwork as a result of subsurface moisture becoming trapped beneath relatively impervious asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete surfaces. Perched groundwater may also develop above clayey soils, saturating near-surface materials. The contractor should anticipate that pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered during site grading activities, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. Recommendations to stabilize pumping subgrade are provided in Section 5.3.

5.2.3 Fill Material and Compaction Criteria
The on-site soils, minus any debris, organic matter, or other deleterious materials, may be used as structural fill. Rock or other soil fragments greater than 3 inches in size should not be used in the fills. The presence of oversized materials, such as cobbles, should be anticipated.

Granular (sandy) soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557) in accordance with the Costco Wholesale Development Requirements (CWDRs).

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

The moisture content of granular soils should be maintained at within 2 percent of optimum during compaction. Due to the difficulty of compacting clayey soils, we do not recommend compacting

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 21 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
the onsite soils to at least 95 percent. The clayey soils should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557). The moisture content of clayey fill should be maintained at least +2 percent above optimum for the onsite clayey soils during compaction.

The moisture content of the clayey fill is considered very important, and therefore, both relative compaction and moisture content should be used to evaluate compaction acceptance. If both criteria are not within the specified tolerances, the fill should not be accepted, and the contractor should rework the material until the fill is placed within the specified tolerances.

Based on past experiences, it is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon removal of site pavements or flatwork as a result of subsurface moisture becoming trapped beneath relatively impervious asphalt concrete or Portland cement surfaces. Processing may require ripping the material, disking to break up clumps, and blending to attain uniform moisture contents necessary for compaction. Utility trench backfill should be mechanically compacted. Flooding should not be permitted.

Import materials, if required, should have an Expansion Index (EI) of less than 20 with no more than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve and no particles greater than 3 inches in maximum dimension. The maximum EI for imported soils may be modified by the project geotechnical engineer depending on its proposed use. Imported fill should be documented to be free of hazardous materials, including petroleum or petroleum byproducts, chemicals and harmful minerals. Kleinfelder should evaluate the proposed imported materials prior to their transportation and use on site.

5.2.4 Excavation Characteristics
The upper soils consist silty to clayey sands with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. The proposed excavations should be excavatable with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment maintained in good condition. However, oversize materials (greater than 3 inches in diameter) should be anticipated within excavated areas. We recommend that cobbles (i.e., material greater than 3 inches in diameter) not be used as fill material and disposed of off-site.

5.2.5 Temporary Excavations
All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including OSHA requirements. The responsibility for excavation safety and stability of temporary construction slopes lies solely with the contractor. We are providing this information below solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information provided be interpreted

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 22 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for final engineering of excavations or shoring, construction site safety, or the contractors’ activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

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

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

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

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

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

Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with recommendations provided for structural fill in Section 5.2.3. Mechanical compaction is recommended; ponding or jetting not

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 23 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder
be used, especially in areas supporting structural loads or beneath concrete slabs supported on grade, pavements, or other improvements.

5.3 UNSTABLE SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
It is common to encounter wet, unstable soils upon removal of site pavements or flatwork as a result of subsurface moisture becoming trapped beneath relatively impervious asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete surfaces. Additionally, depending on time of year and weather conditions we anticipate that near surface soils may become saturated. Pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered during site grading activities, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized. Additionally, should grading be performed during or following periods of rainfall, the moisture content of near-surface soils will also be significantly above the optimum moisture content. These conditions could seriously impede grading by causing an unstable subgrade condition. Typical remedial measures include the following:
• Drying: Drying unstable subgrade involves disking or ripping wet subgrade to a depth of approximately 18 to 24 inches and allowing the exposed soil to dry. Multiple passes of the equipment (likely on a daily basis) will be needed because as the surface of the soil dries, a crust forms that reduces further evaporation. Frequent disking will help prevent the formation of a crust and will promote drying. This process could take several days to several weeks depending on the depth of ripping, the number of passes, and the weather. • Removal and Replacement with Crushed Rock and Geotextile Fabric: Unstable subgrade could be over-excavated 12 to 24 inches below existing grade and replaced with ¾- or 1-inch crushed rock underlain and/or wrapped by geotextile fabric. The geotextile fabric should consist of a woven geotextile, such as Mirafi HP series or equivalent. The final depth of removal will depend upon the conditions observed in the field once overexcavation begins. The geotextile fabric should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

5.4 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Prior to casting exterior flatwork, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and recompacted or over-excavated, as recommended in Section 5.2.2. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be maintained at the required level until placement of any flatwork or structural fill. Careful control of the water/cement ratio should be performed to avoid shrinkage cracking or curling due to excess water or poor concrete finishing or curing.

20203667.001A/LH20R110080 Page 24 of 29 May 8, 2020
Copyright 2020 Kleinfelder

5.5 PAVEMENTS

5.5.1 HMA Design
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) should conform to requirements of the Costco Wholesale Specification Section 321216, Asphalt Paving. Section 1.3.C of the HMA specification requires that the HMA section be placed in at least two lifts. The HMA specification allows the use of ½- or ¾-inch Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) mixes for the base course and ⅜- or ½-inch NMAS mixes for surface course. Maximum and minimum HMA compacted lift thicknesses are provided in Table 3.1 in Section 3.3.B of the HMA specification.

5.5.2 Construction Considerations
The pavement sections provided in Section 4.7 are contingent on the following recommendations being implemented during construction.
• Pavement subgrade should be prepared as recommended in Section 5.2.2. • Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time the aggregate base materials are placed and compacted.
• Aggregate base materials should be moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). • Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet current Costco Wholesale Specifications Section 321216.
• Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the subgrade soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet.

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