Antioch City Council
November 4, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
Density Residential (“HDR”) in the Antioch General Plan and zoned High Density Residential District (“R-25”).
3 The Staff Report claims that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 because it was adequately analyzed by the Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice Elements Project Environmental Impact Report (“Housing Element EIR”). 4 Accordingly, the Staff Report recommends that the Council adopt a resolution approving the Project’s Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (“VTSM”) and Design Review (“DR”).
5 However, this conclusion is unsupported because the Housing Element EIR did not conduct a site-specific analysis of the Project’s air quality, public health, noise, or transportation impacts. Moreover, as explained below, the City has failed to address Contra Costa Residents’ previous comments to the Planning Commission, which were supported by expert evidence, demonstrating that the Project may result in significant and peculiar air quality, public health, and noise impacts which are not substantially mitigated by the measures in the Housing Element EIR or other uniform development policies.

With respect to air quality and public health, the City failed to respond to expert evidence from Contra Costa Residents’ air quality consultant that the Project will have significant air quality and public health impacts on nearby residents due to diesel emissions from Project construction and operations. These Project-specific impacts were not addressed in the Housing Element EIR. The City has concluded that a single mitigation measure from that EIR applies to this Project, but Contra Costa Residents’ expert evidence shows that the Project’s air quality and public health impacts will be significant even with that measure applied. These impacts are therefore potentially significant and unmitigated.

With respect to noise, the City failed to respond to expert evidence from Contra Costa Residents’ noise consultant that the Project is likely to have significant noise and vibration impacts on nearby residents. The City failed to prepare a Project-specific noise attenuation study, as required by the Housing Element EIR since the Project may exceed General Plan noise objectives. As it has not performed any Project-specific noise analysis, the City lacks any support for its conclusions regarding the Project’s noise impacts.

3 Id. at p. 2.
4 Id. at p. 3.
5 Id. at p. 1.

H146

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
In sum, the record before the Council contains substantial evidence that the Project will have significant and site-specific air quality, public health, and noise impacts, which were not analyzed in the Housing Element EIR and have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated. Despite this, the City has not provided substantial evidence to support its reliance on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and has not responded to comments that directly refute it. Thus, the City cannot claim exemption under CEQA Guidelines 15183 and must prepare a project-level EIR that analyzes all of the Project’s potentially significant and Site-specific environmental impacts before the Council may consider approving the Project or its entitlements.

Contra Costa Residents respectfully requests that the Council continue the hearing and remand the Project to City Staff to prepare a project-level EIR in compliance with CEQA before bringing the Project back for further consideration.

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST

Contra Costa Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards, and the environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who live and work in the City of Antioch and Contra Costa County.

Contra Costa Residents’ individual members live, work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Antioch and surrounding communities. Accordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental, health, and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist on site.

Contra Costa Residents also has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for businesses and industries to expand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities.

H147

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
II. THE CITY FAILED TO ADDRESS EXPERT EVIDENCE

DEMONSTRATING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

On July 15, 2025, Contra Costa Residents submitted comments, supported by expert evidence, explaining that the Project is likely to result in peculiar impacts that were not identified or analyzed in the Housing Element EIR or the 15183 Consistency Memorandum (“Consistency Memorandum”), thereby requiring preparation of a project-level EIR. Specifically, Contra Costa Residents’ expert reports included evidence demonstrating that the Project may result in potentially significant and peculiar impacts on air quality, public health, and noise.

The City failed to analyze noise impacts specific to the Project, while our noise expert identified significant construction noise and vibration impacts that are unique to the Project site and were not addressed in the Housing Element EIR.

Additionally, neither the Consistency Memorandum nor the Housing Element EIR included emissions modeling necessary to assess potential air quality and public health impacts.

In response to Contra Costa Residents’ July 15 Comments, the City revised the Consistency Memorandum and provided written responses in the Staff Report prepared for the Planning Commission’s August 20, 2025, meeting. 6 However, these
responses failed to resolve the deficiencies in the Project’s impact analyses. On August 19, 2025, Contra Costa Residents’ submitted comments explaining that the City had not adequately analyzed or mitigated the Project’s significant, site-specific impacts related to air quality, public health, and noise. 7 We further commented that
the City did not provide substantial evidence to show that applicable Housing Element policies or standards will effectively mitigate these Project-specific impacts.

The August 19, 2025 comments were supported by expert analysis. Contra Costa Residents’ air quality and public health experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg, and Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. of Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises (“SWAPE”), conducted a screening-level health risk analysis (“HRA”) showing that potentially significant, unmitigated, Project-specific air quality and public health impacts

6 City of Antioch, Staff Report to the Antioch Planning Commission Regular Meeting of August 20, 2025, re: Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project, Attachment E, p. E29. 7 ABJC, Comments Re: Antioch Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item 6 -1; Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project (TM-02, AR-23-05) (August 19, 2025).

H148

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
would result from emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) during Project construction and operation.
8 Contra Costa Residents’ noise consultant, Jack Meighan, provided substantial evidence that the Project is likely to result in significant construction noise and vibration impacts.
9 As a result, the City has not complied with the
Housing Element EIR’s requirement to prepare a noise attenuation study, rendering the Project inconsistent with the General Plan.10 Despite this evidence, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Project to the City Council.11
The Staff Report for the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting acknowledges receipt of these comments but fails to provide any substantive response.12 Nor does it propose any further revisions to the Consistency Memorandum, mitigation measures, or its COAs. Instead, the City relies solely on statements made by Planning Manager, Zoe Meredith and City Attorney, Derek Cole during the August 20, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. 13 At that time,
City staff summarily concluded that no new issues had been raised and that CEQA requirements had been fully satisfied.
14 This cursory dismissal ignores the
extensive technical evidence submitted by Contra Costa Residents’ experts and fails to provide substantial evidence to support the Council’s approval of the Project in reliance on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.

III. THE CITY HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH CEQA

As summarized above, Contra Costa Residents and its expert consultants submitted comments to the Planning Commission on August 19, 2025, that provided substantial evidence showing that the City’s revisions to the Consistency Memorandum and COA’s failed to adequately address the Project’s significant, Site- specific impacts related to air quality, public health, noise, and transportation.

These impacts were not analyzed in the Housing Element EIR or the Consistency

8 See Exhibit A, SWAPE, Comments on Wildflower Townhomes 8.20 Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report (August 18, 2025) (“SWAPE Comments”).
9 See Exhibit B, Jack Meighan, Comments on Wildflower Townhomes 8.20 Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report (August 18, 2025) (“Meighan Comments”). 10 Id.
11 Wildflower Staff Report, p. 1.
12 Id. at p. 10.
13 City of Antioch Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for August 20, 2025, pp. 2 -3. 14 Id.

H149

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
Memorandum. The City has failed to respond to this evidence, leaving all issues raised unaddressed. As a result, the City cannot rely on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 exemption and must prepare a project-level EIR that fully analyzes and mitigates these issues prior to Project approval.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides an exemption for projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, except as necessary to evaluate whether there are project-specific significant impacts which are peculiar to the project or project site.
15 In relying on section 15183 to approve a project, a lead agency may not forgo further analysis of potentially significant impacts unless it makes certain findings. An agency is required to perform further analysis as to impacts that (1) are peculiar to the proposed project or parcel, (2) were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR for the zoning, community or general plan with which the project is consistent, (3) are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts that were not discussed in the prior EIR, or (4) are previously identified significant impacts which, due to substantial new information not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
16 Under section 15183(f), an effect of a project on the environment is not considered peculiar to the project or project site if “uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted …with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate the environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.”
17 Agency determinations under Guidelines section 15183 are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
18 In determining whether an agency’s findings
concerning the use of a statutory exemption from CEQA may be upheld, courts review the administrative record to see that substantial evidence supports each element of the exemption.
19 This includes the determination that “uniformly applied

15 14 CCR § 15183(a).
16 14 CCR § 15183(b)(1)-(4).
17 14 CCR § 15183(f).
18 Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 538, citing Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2103) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311; see also, Hilltop Group v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 909-10.
19 Lucas, 92 Cal.App.5th at 538.

H150

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
development policies or standards” will substantially mitigate the project’s environmental effects.
20 Agency findings must specifically address the effect of uniform policies and standards on potential environmental impacts.21

In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15168’s two-step inquiry of a program EIR’s applicability to later activities holds that “if a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration.” The City insists that, pursuant to sections 15168 and 15183, the Project is within the scope of the program EIR, and no subsequent EIR is required. “Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record.” 22 The City claims that this Project will not result in any significant, Site- specific impacts that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Housing Element EIR.

However, as discussed in our previous comments, the Consistency Memorandum does not analyze several significant and Site-specific impacts, rendering this conclusion unsupported. Moreover, the City has not demonstrated that the Housing Element EIR includes development policies or standards that will substantially mitigate those impacts, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Contra Costa Residents’ expert consultants provided substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant and Site-specific impacts related to air quality, public health, and noise.

First, the City failed to address the significant air quality and public health impacts identified by SWAPE. The screening-level HRA conducted by SWAPE calculated that the Project’s construction and operational activities would result in a lifetime cancer risk (30 years) of 16.3 in one million. This exceeds the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (“BAAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million. Neither the Housing Element EIR nor the Consistency Memorandum conducted any Site-specific emissions modeling to identify, analyze, and mitigate these potential impacts. Furthermore, the Consistency Memorandum acknowledges that because of the Project’s size and location, only mitigation measure AIR-3a, from the Housing Element EIR applies to this Project. As a result, the proposed Project is required to equip all off-road diesel equipment with Tier 4 engines, and the Applicant must prepare a Construction

20 14 CCR § 15183(f).
21 Hilltop Group, 99 Cal.App.5th at 918.
22 CEQA Guidelines § 15168.

H151

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
Emissions Minimization Plan for all identified reduction measures. However, SWAPE’s calculations above accounted for the use of Tier 4 engines and thus the Project’s air quality and public health impacts are significant even after mitigation.

The Staff Report fails to respond to these findings or provide any contrary evidence.

Second, the City failed to address significant construction noise and vibration impacts. Mr. Meighan provided substantial evidence that construction activity would result in significant noise and vibration levels affecting residences located just 90 feet from the Project site. Neither the Housing Element EIR nor the Consistency Memorandum includes any site-specific analysis of ambient noise or modeling of the Project’s construction noise impacts. Instead, the City claims that a noise study is not necessary and that General Plan Policy 11.8.2 is a uniformly applicable development policy identified by the Housing Element EIR as being sufficient to substantially mitigate impacts. However, as Mr. Meighan’s previous comments explain, the City has not provided any evidence demonstrating that implementing the measures in Policy 11.8.2 would reduce the Project’s noise impacts to less than significant levels. Additionally, this mischaracterizes the Housing Element’s own conclusions.

The Housing Element EIR specifically states that pursuant to General Plan Policy 11.8.2(f) a noise attenuation study must be prepared if the Project would exceed the General Plan noise objectives. Because the City has not performed any Project-specific noise analysis, it lacks any evidence demonstrating that the Project will not exceed these noise objectives. In response to Contra Costa Residents’ and Mr. Meighan’s comments, the Staff Report similarly fails to provide any evidence showing that the Project would not exceed such objectives and thus the City does not comply with General Plan Policy 11.8.2(f) as required by the Housing Element EIR.

Therefore, Contra Costa Residents’ prior comments provided substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will result in significant, Site-specific air quality, public health, and noise impacts. These impacts were not analyzed or mitigated in the Housing Element EIR or the Consistency Memorandum. The City’s failure to respond to this evidence leaves these issues unresolved. As a result, the City must prepare a project-level EIR that analyzes and mitigates all of the potentially significant, Project-specific impacts.

H152

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
IV. THE CITY COUNCIL LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO MAKE

THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE PROJECTS

ENTITLEMENTS

The Project requires the City to approve a VTSM for condominium purposes that would subdivide the Project site for the development of 19 townhome buildings totaling 159 residential units.23 However, the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the VTSM because the record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project has significant and unmitigated air quality, public health, and noise impacts that are peculiar to the Project site.

California’s Subdivision Map Act precludes the approval of a tentative map where the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general plan, is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or is likely to cause serious public health problems.
24 Additionally, Antioch Municipal Code Section 9-4.323 states that a VTSM may be made conditional or denied if any of the following is determined:

• A failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both; or

• The condition or denial is required in order to comply with state or federal laws.

As detailed in our comments and those of our experts, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project will not cause serious public health problems and/or place residents or the immediate community in a condition dangerous to their health or safety.
25 There is substantial evidence that the Project
may result in potentially significant environmental impacts peculiar to the Project, including: (1) potentially significant and Site-specific air quality and health risks associated with DPM emissions during construction, and (2) significant construction-related noise and vibration impacts. The Consistency Memoranda failed to adequately analyze or mitigate these impacts, and the Staff Report fails to address these concerns in response to Contra Costa Residents’ comments. These

23 Wildflower Staff Report, p. 1.
24 Government Code § 66474(b), (e) and (f).
25 Government Code § 66474(e), (f); Antioch Municipal Code 9-4.323.

H153

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
unaddressed impacts would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community if the Project proceeds as currently proposed.

The City also lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project complies with the General Plan. General Plan Policy 10.6.2(a) requires development projects to minimize particulate emissions during construction by implementing dust abatement actions outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Handbook. 26 As discussed above
and in our previous comments, Contra Costa Residents’ air quality expert provided substantial evidence showing that cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded.

Despite this, the City failed to prepare an HRA or propose mitigation for diesel particulate matter emissions . This violates General Plan Policy 10.6.2(a)

When a project will exceed General Plan noise objectives, General Plan Policy

11.8.2(f) “requires a detailed noise attenuation study to be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to determine appropriate mitigation and ways to incorporate such mitigation into project design and implementation.” 27 Yet the City has
provided no analysis to determine whether either of these conditions apply to the Project.
28 Instead, it simply asserts, without baseline noise measurements or supporting data, that the Project would not trigger these thresholds.29 This violates General Plan Policy 11.8.2.

Therefore, the City cannot make the required findings under the Subdivision Map Act and Antioch’s Municipal Code to approve the VTSM. The Staff Report fails to meaningfully respond to the substantial evidence and expert analysis submitted in our prior comments, leaving critical environmental issues unresolved. As proposed, the Project is inconsistent with key General Plan policies and violates CEQA. The City must prepare a project-level EIR that fully analyzes and mitigates all of the Project’s potentially significant and Site-specific impacts before Project approval.

V. CONCLUSION

As discussed herein, the City lacks substantial evidence to rely on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 exemption for Project approval. The Project will result in potentially significant, Site-specific air quality, public health, and noise impacts

26 Housing Element EIR, p. II-11
27 Housing Element EIR, p. IV.L-13.
28 Meighan Comments, p. 1.
29 Meighan Comments, p. 1.

H154

September 23, 2025

7194-007acp

printed on recycled paper
that were not analyzed or mitigated in the Housing Element EIR or the 15183 Consistency Memorandum. The City has failed to respond to or resolve these deficiencies, resulting in violations of both CEQA and the General Plan.

Residents respectfully requests that the City Council continue this hearing, and remand the Project to staff to prepare a project-level EIR that fully evaluates and mitigates these impacts in compliance with CEQA before the City Council considers Project approval.

Sincerely,

Alaura McGuire

Attachments
ARM:acp
H155

EXHIBIT A
H156

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
August 19, 2025
Alaura McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Wildflower Townhomes Project
Dear Ms. McGuire,
We have reviewed the March 2024 Consistency Memorandum (“Memo”) and the Staff Report for the August 20, 2025, Planning Commission meeting for the Wildflower Townhomes Project (“Project”) located in the City of Antioch (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 159 dwelling units on a 10.35- acre site.

Our review concludes that the Memo fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.1 AERSCREEN is included in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening

1 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air- quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.

H157
2 assessments (“HRSAs”).2, 3 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.

In an effort to quantitatively estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we used the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2022.1.1.29,4 as well as Project- specific information provided by the Memo. In our model, we included 159 dwelling units of the “Apartments Mid Rise” land use (Memo, p. 2). Consistent with the Memo, we also assumed Tier 4 mitigation for all construction equipment (p. 11). All other values were left as default.

We then prepared a preliminary health risk analysis (“HRA”) of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impacts to residential sensitive receptors using the annual particulate matter 2.5 (“PM2.5”) exhaust estimates from SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files.5 Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. 6 SWAPE’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 31 pounds of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) over the 565-day construction period.7 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠� = 31.0 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸
565 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.000288 grams per second (“g/s”).

Subtracting the 565-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.45 years. SWAPE’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 20 net pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑠𝑠� = 20 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸
365 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑 𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠 𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑
24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜 𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸 𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔
3,600 𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠 𝐸𝐸 = 𝟎𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎/𝒔𝒔

2 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 3 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 4 “CalEEMod” CAPCOA, available at: https://caleemod.com/. 5 See Attachment A for SWAPE’s CalEEMod output files.
6 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 7 See Attachment B for health risk calculations.

H158
3 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00028 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 10.35-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 289- by 145-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Antioch was obtained from U.S. 2024 Census data. 8 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.
9 Review of the Memo indicates that the nearest sensitive receptors are immediately adjacent to the Project site (p. 2). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 0.2761 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.02761 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.2761 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.02761 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. 10
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”). 11 Specifically,
guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), ASFs, fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

8 “Antioch.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, available at:
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0602252?q=Antioch%2C+CA%2C+USA. 9 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf 10 See Attachment C for AERSCREEN output files.
11 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2012, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may- 2012.pdf, p. 65, 86.

H159
4 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)12
Age
Sensitivity
Factor13
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home14
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)15
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day
-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:

𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × � 𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸
w
here:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)

12 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 6; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24; see also: “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permit- modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-
pdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 4, 5. 15 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

H160
5 A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

𝐶𝐶
𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸 𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 565-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), as well as the first 1.30 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.70 years of the infantile stage of life, the entire child (2 – 16 years) stage of life, as well as the entire adult (16 – 30 years) stage of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.0276 3.19E-07
Construction 1.30 0.0276 5.00E-06
Operation 0.70 0.0276 2.71E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 7.71E-06
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0276 7.20E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0276 1.11E-06
Lifetime 30 1.63E-05

H161
6 As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 0.319, 7.71, 7.2, and 1.11 in one million, respectively.

The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 16.3 in one million. The lifetime cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the Memo.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, a full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions As discussed above in the section titled “Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact,” the Memo demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors due to Project-related DPM emissions. According to the EPA, sources of DPM include “autos, trucks, and heavy on-road and offroad equipment,” which represent a “significant threat to air quality and human health.” 16

16 “Diesel Particulate Matter (PM) Air Toxics.” EPA, January 2021, available at:
https://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/DataFactSheets/pdf/Supplemental/DieselPMairtoxics.pdf.

H162
7 To comply with CEQA, the City must propose mitigation measures that will reduce DPM emissions to less than significant levels or to the greatest extent feasible if a refined HRA shows a significant impact. To reduce DPM emissions during Project construction and operations from engine exhaust, the CalEEMod User’s Guide recommends the following mitigation measures:
“The emissions mitigation measures for onsite off-road construction diesel equipment include use of alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.” 17
Furthermore, we recommend several applicable mitigation measures pulled from Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS Program Environment Impact Report’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) that target Project-related DPM sources: 18 • Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. • Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment should also be required. • Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements —saves fuel and reduces emissions.

As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce construction- related and operational DPM emissions. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

A full CEQA analysis should be prepared that includes an updated, refined HRA as well as any necessary mitigation measures to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The full CEQA analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional

17 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60. 18 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir.

H163
8 information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment B: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment C: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment D: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV
H164
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
1 / 40
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Attachment A
H165
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
2 / 40

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
H166
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
3 / 40

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
H167
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
4 / 40

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment H168
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
5 / 40

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
H169
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
6 / 40

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Wildflower Townhomes
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 20.6
Location 37.99029248818165, -121.78321479853687
County Contra Costa
City Antioch
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1359
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area
(sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
159 Dwelling Unit 10.3 152,640 20,000 — 460 —
H170
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
7 / 40

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 108 108 9.56 19.1 0.03 0.09 1.07 1.16 0.09 0.25 0.34 — 3,837 3,837 0.14 0.12 4.73 3,882 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.87 0.86 19.5 36.0 0.06 0.20 19.8 19.9 0.19 10.1 10.2 — 6,757 6,757 0.27 0.13 0.12 6,782 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.11 6.09 7.90 14.7 0.02 0.08 1.89 1.97 0.08 0.72 0.80 — 2,946 2,946 0.11 0.08 1.15 2,973 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.12 1.11 1.44 2.69 < 0.005 0.01 0.35 0.36 0.01 0.13 0.15 — 488 488 0.02 0.01 0.19 492

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.76 0.72 9.56 19.1 0.03 0.09 1.07 1.16 0.09 0.25 0.34 — 3,837 3,837 0.14 0.12 4.73 3,882 H171
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
8 / 40
2027 108 108 9.53 18.8 0.03 0.09 1.07 1.16 0.09 0.25 0.34 — 3,810 3,810 0.14 0.12 4.26 3,854 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.87 0.86 19.5 36.0 0.06 0.20 19.8 19.9 0.19 10.1 10.2 — 6,757 6,757 0.27 0.13 0.12 6,782 2027 0.72 0.66 9.61 18.1 0.03 0.09 1.07 1.16 0.09 0.25 0.34 — 3,727 3,727 0.14 0.13 0.11 3,768 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.52 0.48 7.90 14.7 0.02 0.08 1.89 1.97 0.08 0.72 0.80 — 2,946 2,946 0.11 0.08 1.15 2,973 2027 6.11 6.09 3.14 5.74 0.01 0.03 0.31 0.34 0.03 0.07 0.11 — 1,152 1,152 0.04 0.04 0.54 1,164 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.09 0.09 1.44 2.69 < 0.005 0.01 0.35 0.36 0.01 0.13 0.15 — 488 488 0.02 0.01 0.19 492 2027 1.12 1.11 0.57 1.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 191 191 0.01 0.01 0.09 193

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.28 7.89 4.28 34.9 0.07 0.20 5.61 5.81 0.20 1.42 1.62 74.5 8,991 9,066 7.85 0.28 21.2 9,366 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.28 6.91 4.60 24.0 0.07 0.20 5.61 5.80 0.19 1.42 1.62 74.5 8,545 8,619 7.88 0.30 1.61 8,908 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.32 7.04 2.82 25.9 0.06 0.07 5.26 5.33 0.07 1.33 1.40 74.5 6,375 6,449 7.81 0.27 9.33 6,736 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.34 1.29 0.51 4.73 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.26 12.3 1,055 1,068 1.29 0.05 1.55 1,115 H172
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
9 / 40

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.37 3.13 2.27 25.1 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 6,202 6,202 0.24 0.24 20.1 6,299 Area 4.88 4.74 1.66 9.69 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 2,016 2,016 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,018 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 752 752 0.09 0.01 — 756 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 8.28 7.89 4.28 34.9 0.07 0.20 5.61 5.81 0.20 1.42 1.62 74.5 8,991 9,066 7.85 0.28 21.2 9,366 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.20 2.94 2.67 23.2 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 5,779 5,779 0.28 0.26 0.52 5,865 Area 4.04 3.95 1.57 0.67 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 1,992 1,992 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,994 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 752 752 0.09 0.01 — 756 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 7.28 6.91 4.60 24.0 0.07 0.20 5.61 5.80 0.19 1.42 1.62 74.5 8,545 8,619 7.88 0.30 1.61 8,908 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.01 2.77 2.38 21.3 0.05 0.04 5.26 5.30 0.04 1.33 1.37 — 5,540 5,540 0.25 0.24 8.24 5,626 Area 4.27 4.25 0.08 4.47 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 61.0 61.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.1 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 752 752 0.09 0.01 — 756 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222 H173
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
10 / 40
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total 7.32 7.04 2.82 25.9 0.06 0.07 5.26 5.33 0.07 1.33 1.40 74.5 6,375 6,449 7.81 0.27 9.33 6,736 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.55 0.51 0.44 3.88 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.25 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 1.36 932 Area 0.78 0.78 0.01 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 — 125 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.84 3.60 5.44 0.19 < 0.005 — 11.5 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 0.00 10.5 1.05 0.00 — 36.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total 1.34 1.29 0.51 4.73 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.26 12.3 1,055 1,068 1.29 0.05 1.55 1,115

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.41 0.41 11.9 18.2 0.03 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 H174
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
11 / 40
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.65 1.00 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 120 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.57 6.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.67 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 H175
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
12 / 40
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.09 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.10 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.64 0.64 14.7 28.3 0.05 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.40 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
H176
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
13 / 40
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 140 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.83 3.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.89 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.64 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 H177
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
14 / 40

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 19.4 35.3 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.07 1.60 2.91 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 542 542 0.02 < 0.005 — 544 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.76 0.76 — 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
H178
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
15 / 40

90.1—< 0.005< 0.00589.889.8—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.530.290.010.01Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 160 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.3 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.21 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) H179
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
16 / 40
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.32 8.74 14.3 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.32 8.74 14.3 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.17 0.17 4.75 7.78 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,304 1,304 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.87 1.42 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 216 216 0.01 < 0.005 — 217 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
H180
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
17 / 40
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.40 0.39 0.25 4.49 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 990 990 0.02 0.04 3.64 1,005 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 451 451 0.03 0.07 1.09 472 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.34 0.32 3.78 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 905 905 0.03 0.04 0.09 918 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 451 451 0.02 0.07 0.03 471 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.18 0.16 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 498 498 0.01 0.02 0.85 505 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 245 245 0.01 0.04 0.25 257 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 82.4 82.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 83.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.5 Hauling 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 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
H181
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
18 / 40
2,405—0.020.102,3972,397—0.08—0.080.09—0.090.0214.38.740.320.32Off-Roa d
Equipm
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.32 8.74 14.3 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 2.45 4.00 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 671 671 0.03 0.01 — 673 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.45 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 111 111 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 111 Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.39 0.35 0.24 4.21 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 971 971 0.02 0.04 3.30 986 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.55 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 442 442 0.02 0.07 0.96 463 Hauling 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 0.00 H182
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
19 / 40
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.33 0.29 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.22 0.22 — 888 888 0.02 0.04 0.09 901 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 442 442 0.02 0.07 0.02 462 Hauling 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 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.01 0.01 0.40 255 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 124 124 0.01 0.02 0.12 129 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 42.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.4 Hauling 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 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.23 7.21 10.6 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 H183
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
20 / 40
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.39 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 127 127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 129 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.45 6.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.54 Vendor 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 0.00 H184
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
21 / 40
Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 1.07 0.96 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s
107 107 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 H185
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
22 / 40
————————————————5.895.89Architect
ur
al
Coating
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

1.07 1.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck

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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 194 194 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 197 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.84 9.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.98 Vendor 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 0.00 Hauling 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.65 Vendor 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 0.00 H186
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
23 / 40
Hauling 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 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

3.37 3.13 2.27 25.1 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 6,202 6,202 0.24 0.24 20.1 6,299 Total 3.37 3.13 2.27 25.1 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 6,202 6,202 0.24 0.24 20.1 6,299 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

3.20 2.94 2.67 23.2 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 5,779 5,779 0.28 0.26 0.52 5,865 Total 3.20 2.94 2.67 23.2 0.06 0.04 5.61 5.65 0.04 1.42 1.46 — 5,779 5,779 0.28 0.26 0.52 5,865 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

0.55 0.51 0.44 3.88 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.25 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 1.36 932 Total 0.55 0.51 0.44 3.88 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.97 0.01 0.24 0.25 — 917 917 0.04 0.04 1.36 932

4.2. Energy
H187
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
24 / 40

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.05 0.01 — 306
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.05 0.01 — 306
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.05 0.01 — 306
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 303 303 0.05 0.01 — 306
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 50.2 50.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 50.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 50.2 50.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 50.7

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 449 449 0.04 < 0.005 — 450 H188
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
25 / 40
Total 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 449 449 0.04 < 0.005 — 450 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 449 449 0.04 < 0.005 — 450 Total 0.04 0.02 0.35 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 449 449 0.04 < 0.005 — 450 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise

0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 74.3 74.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 74.5 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 74.3 74.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 74.5

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.18 0.09 1.57 0.67 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 1,992 1,992 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,994 Consum
er
Product
s

3.27 3.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.84 0.79 0.09 9.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 H189
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
26 / 40
Total 4.88 4.74 1.66 9.69 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 2,016 2,016 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,018 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.18 0.09 1.57 0.67 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 1,992 1,992 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,994 Consum
er
Product
s

3.27 3.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 4.04 3.95 1.57 0.67 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 0.00 1,992 1,992 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,994 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 8.13 8.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.14 Consum
er
Product
s

0.60 0.60 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coating
s

0.11 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.07 0.01 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.97 1.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.98 Total 0.78 0.78 0.01 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) H190
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
27 / 40
CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 21.7 32.8 1.14 0.03 — 69.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.84 3.60 5.44 0.19 < 0.005 — 11.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.84 3.60 5.44 0.19 < 0.005 — 11.5

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222
H191
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
28 / 40
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 63.4 0.00 63.4 6.33 0.00 — 222 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 0.00 10.5 1.05 0.00 — 36.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.5 0.00 10.5 1.05 0.00 — 36.7

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.09 1.09
H192
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
29 / 40
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.18

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e H193
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
30 / 40
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated H194
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
31 / 40
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e H195
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
32 / 40
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
H196
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
33 / 40
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/13/2026 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/28/2026 5.00 30.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/29/2026 5/23/2027 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 5/24/2027 6/21/2027 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/22/2027 7/20/2027 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Sa
ws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
H197
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
34 / 40
Grading Scrapers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 423 0.48 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
H198
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
35 / 40
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 114 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 17.0 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 22.9 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 309,096 103,032 0.00 0.00 —
H199
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
36 / 40

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
865 781 650 300,124 7,943 7,169 5,972 2,756,074
H200
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
37 / 40

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 81
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 78
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
309096 103,032 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
H201
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
38 / 40

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 542,421 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,399,847

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 5,786,380 291,748

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 118 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other
residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refr
igerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
H202
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
39 / 40

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
H203
Wildflower Townhomes Custom Report, 8/8/2025
40 / 40

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Consistent with the Staff Report.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Consistent with the Staff Report.

H204
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Total DPM (lbs) 30.96890411 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Total DPM (g) 14042.9589 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Construction Duration (days) 365 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000287671 Total DPM (lbs) 20 Total DPM (lbs) 20 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000287671 Total DPM (g) 9072 Total Acreage 10.35 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 1/1/2026 Max Horizontal (meters) 289.43 Total Acreage 10.35 End Date 1/1/2027 Min Horizontal (meters) 144.72 Max Horizontal (meters) 289.43 Construction Days 365 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 144.72 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.01 Population 118,453 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.054794521 Start Date 1/1/2026 Population 118,453 Construction Duration (days) 200 End Date 7/20/2027
Total DPM (lbs) 10.95890411 Total Construction Days 565 Total DPM (g) 4970.958904 Total Years of Construction 1.55 Start Date 1/1/2027 Total Years of Operation 28.45
End Date 7/20/2027
Construction Days 200
2027
Construction Operation
2026 Total Emission Rate
Attachment B
H205
Age Group Emissions Source D uration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3 rd Trimester Construction 0. 25 0.0276 3.19E-07
Construction 1.30 0. 0276 5.00E-06
Operation 0.70 0.0276 2.71E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 7. 71E-06
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0. 0276 7.20E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0. 0276 1.11E-06
Lifetime 30 1. 63E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor H206
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112                                      08/11/25 14:15:18
TITLE: Wildflower, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE:         0.288E‐03 g/s             0.228E‐02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE:           0.687E‐08 g/(s‐m2)        0.545E‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT:                       3.00 meters               9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:           289.43 meters             949.57 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:          144.72 meters             474.80 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:        1.50 meters               4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN:                   URBAN
POPULATION:                      118453
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =          5000. meters             16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo        SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000    0.2761      15   150.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Attachment C
H207
**********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED:       0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON:          Winter
ALBEDO:                  0.35
BOWEN RATIO:             1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH:       1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10  10 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      6.0 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0   310.0    2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM                             MAXIMUM
DIST     1‐HR CONC                  DIST     1‐HR CONC
(m)      (ug/m3)                    (m)      (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐               ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00    0.2109                   2525.00    0.6025E‐02
H208

25.00    0.2252                   2550.00    0.5945E‐02

50.00    0.2381                   2575.00    0.5867E‐02

75.00    0.2495                   2600.00    0.5790E‐02 100.00    0.2595                   2625.00    0.5716E‐02 125.00    0.2687                   2650.00    0.5642E‐02 150.00    0.2761                   2675.00    0.5571E‐02 175.00    0.2158                   2700.00    0.5560E‐02 200.00    0.1670                   2725.00    0.5490E‐02 225.00    0.1406                   2750.00    0.5422E‐02 250.00    0.1237                   2775.00    0.5355E‐02 275.00    0.1103                   2800.00    0.5290E‐02 300.00    0.9920E‐01               2825.00    0.5226E‐02 325.00    0.8989E‐01               2850.00    0.5163E‐02 350.00    0.8198E‐01               2875.00    0.5102E‐02 375.00    0.7519E‐01               2900.00    0.5042E‐02 400.00    0.6929E‐01               2925.00    0.4983E‐02 425.00    0.6417E‐01               2950.00    0.4925E‐02 450.00    0.5965E‐01               2975.00    0.4868E‐02 475.00    0.5567E‐01               3000.00    0.4813E‐02 500.00    0.5208E‐01               3025.00    0.4759E‐02 525.00    0.4891E‐01               3050.00    0.4705E‐02 550.00    0.4606E‐01               3075.00    0.4653E‐02 575.00    0.4347E‐01               3100.00    0.4602E‐02 600.00    0.4112E‐01               3125.00    0.4551E‐02 625.00    0.3900E‐01               3150.00    0.4502E‐02 650.00    0.3703E‐01               3175.00    0.4454E‐02 675.00    0.3524E‐01               3200.00    0.4406E‐02 700.00    0.3361E‐01               3225.00    0.4359E‐02 725.00    0.3211E‐01               3250.00    0.4314E‐02 750.00    0.3070E‐01               3275.00    0.4269E‐02 775.00    0.2939E‐01               3300.00    0.4224E‐02 800.00    0.2818E‐01               3325.00    0.4181E‐02 825.00    0.2705E‐01               3350.00    0.4138E‐02 850.00    0.2601E‐01               3375.00    0.4096E‐02 875.00    0.2504E‐01               3400.00    0.4055E‐02 900.00    0.2413E‐01               3425.00    0.4015E‐02 925.00    0.2326E‐01               3450.00    0.3975E‐02 950.00    0.2245E‐01               3475.00    0.3936E‐02 975.00    0.2169E‐01               3500.00    0.3898E‐02 1000.00    0.2096E‐01               3525.00    0.3860E‐02 1025.00    0.2028E‐01               3550.00    0.3823E‐02 1050.00    0.1964E‐01               3575.00    0.3786E‐02 1075.00    0.1903E‐01               3600.00    0.3750E‐02 1100.00    0.1846E‐01               3625.00    0.3715E‐02 1125.00    0.1792E‐01               3650.00    0.3680E‐02 1150.00    0.1740E‐01               3675.00    0.3646E‐02 1175.00    0.1690E‐01               3700.00    0.3612E‐02 1200.00    0.1643E‐01               3725.00    0.3579E‐02 1225.00    0.1598E‐01               3750.00    0.3546E‐02 1250.00    0.1556E‐01               3775.00    0.3514E‐02 H209
1275.00    0.1515E‐01               3800.00    0.3483E‐02 1300.00    0.1476E‐01               3825.00    0.3452E‐02 1325.00    0.1439E‐01               3849.99    0.3421E‐02 1350.00    0.1404E‐01               3875.00    0.3391E‐02 1375.00    0.1370E‐01               3900.00    0.3361E‐02 1400.00    0.1337E‐01               3925.00    0.3332E‐02 1425.00    0.1305E‐01               3950.00    0.3303E‐02 1450.00    0.1275E‐01               3975.00    0.3275E‐02 1475.00    0.1246E‐01               4000.00    0.3247E‐02 1500.00    0.1218E‐01               4025.00    0.3219E‐02 1525.00    0.1192E‐01               4050.00    0.3192E‐02 1550.00    0.1166E‐01               4075.00    0.3165E‐02 1575.00    0.1141E‐01               4100.00    0.3139E‐02 1600.00    0.1117E‐01               4125.00    0.3113E‐02 1625.00    0.1094E‐01               4149.99    0.3087E‐02 1650.00    0.1071E‐01               4175.00    0.3062E‐02 1675.00    0.1050E‐01               4200.00    0.3037E‐02 1700.00    0.1029E‐01               4225.00    0.3013E‐02 1725.00    0.1009E‐01               4250.00    0.2988E‐02 1750.00    0.9894E‐02               4275.00    0.2964E‐02 1775.00    0.9706E‐02               4300.00    0.2941E‐02 1800.00    0.9524E‐02               4325.00    0.2918E‐02 1825.00    0.9347E‐02               4350.00    0.2895E‐02 1850.00    0.9177E‐02               4375.00    0.2872E‐02 1875.00    0.9012E‐02               4400.00    0.2850E‐02 1900.00    0.8853E‐02               4425.00    0.2828E‐02 1925.00    0.8698E‐02               4450.00    0.2806E‐02 1950.00    0.8548E‐02               4475.00    0.2785E‐02 1975.00    0.8402E‐02               4500.00    0.2764E‐02 2000.00    0.8261E‐02               4525.00    0.2743E‐02 2025.00    0.8124E‐02               4550.00    0.2722E‐02 2050.00    0.7991E‐02               4575.00    0.2702E‐02 2075.00    0.7862E‐02               4600.00    0.2682E‐02 2100.00    0.7736E‐02               4625.00    0.2662E‐02 2125.00    0.7613E‐02               4650.00    0.2642E‐02 2150.00    0.7494E‐02               4675.00    0.2623E‐02 2175.00    0.7378E‐02               4700.00    0.2604E‐02 2200.00    0.7264E‐02               4725.00    0.2585E‐02 2225.00    0.7154E‐02               4750.00    0.2567E‐02 2250.00    0.7047E‐02               4775.00    0.2548E‐02 2275.00    0.6943E‐02               4800.00    0.2530E‐02 2300.00    0.6840E‐02               4825.00    0.2512E‐02 2325.00    0.6740E‐02               4850.00    0.2494E‐02 2350.00    0.6643E‐02               4875.00    0.2477E‐02 2375.00    0.6548E‐02               4900.00    0.2460E‐02 2400.00    0.6455E‐02               4924.99    0.2443E‐02 2425.00    0.6365E‐02               4950.00    0.2426E‐02 2450.00    0.6277E‐02               4975.00    0.2409E‐02 2475.00    0.6191E‐02               5000.00    0.2393E‐02 2500.00    0.6107E‐02
H210
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL
CALCULATION          CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC PROCEDURE         (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN       0.2761      0.2761      0.2761      0.2761         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE        150.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY   0.2109      0.2109      0.2109      0.2109         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters
H211
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112                                      08/11/25 15:42:25
TITLE: Wildflower, operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ******************************  AREA PARAMETERS  **************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ SOURCE EMISSION RATE:         0.288E‐03 g/s             0.228E‐02 lb/hr AREA EMISSION RATE:           0.687E‐08 g/(s‐m2)        0.545E‐07 lb/(hr‐m2) AREA HEIGHT:                       3.00 meters               9.84 feet AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:           289.43 meters             949.57 feet AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:          144.72 meters             474.80 feet INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:        1.50 meters               4.92 feet RURAL OR URBAN:                   URBAN
POPULATION:                      118453
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =          5000. meters             16404. feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ***********************  BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS  ********************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **************************  FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS  *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM  IMPACT  RECEPTOR
Zo        SURFACE   1‐HR CONC  RADIAL  DIST   TEMPORAL
SECTOR    ROUGHNESS  (ug/m3)    (deg)   (m)    PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1*       1.000    0.2761      15   150.0     WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ H212
**********************  MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:    250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED:       0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:     10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:    Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON:          Winter
ALBEDO:                  0.35
BOWEN RATIO:             1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH:       1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10  10 01
H0     U*     W*  DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH  M‐O LEN    Z0  BOWEN ALBEDO  REF WS ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐1.30  0.043 ‐9.000  0.020 ‐999.   21.      6.0 1.000   1.50   0.35    0.50 HT  REF TA     HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

10.0   310.0    2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ********************** OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ MAXIMUM                             MAXIMUM
DIST     1‐HR CONC                  DIST     1‐HR CONC
(m)      (ug/m3)                    (m)      (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐               ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

1.00    0.2109                   2525.00    0.6025E‐02
H213

25.00    0.2252                   2550.00    0.5945E‐02

50.00    0.2381                   2575.00    0.5867E‐02

75.00    0.2495                   2600.00    0.5790E‐02 100.00    0.2595                   2625.00    0.5716E‐02 125.00    0.2687                   2650.00    0.5642E‐02 150.00    0.2761                   2675.00    0.5571E‐02 175.00    0.2158                   2700.00    0.5560E‐02 200.00    0.1670                   2725.00    0.5490E‐02 225.00    0.1406                   2750.00    0.5422E‐02 250.00    0.1237                   2775.00    0.5355E‐02 275.00    0.1103                   2800.00    0.5290E‐02 300.00    0.9920E‐01               2825.00    0.5226E‐02 325.00    0.8989E‐01               2850.00    0.5163E‐02 350.00    0.8198E‐01               2875.00    0.5102E‐02 375.00    0.7519E‐01               2900.00    0.5042E‐02 400.00    0.6929E‐01               2925.00    0.4983E‐02 425.00    0.6417E‐01               2950.00    0.4925E‐02 450.00    0.5965E‐01               2975.00    0.4868E‐02 475.00    0.5567E‐01               3000.00    0.4813E‐02 500.00    0.5208E‐01               3025.00    0.4759E‐02 525.00    0.4891E‐01               3050.00    0.4705E‐02 550.00    0.4606E‐01               3075.00    0.4653E‐02 575.00    0.4347E‐01               3100.00    0.4602E‐02 600.00    0.4112E‐01               3125.00    0.4551E‐02 625.00    0.3900E‐01               3150.00    0.4502E‐02 650.00    0.3703E‐01               3175.00    0.4454E‐02 675.00    0.3524E‐01               3200.00    0.4406E‐02 700.00    0.3361E‐01               3225.00    0.4359E‐02 725.00    0.3211E‐01               3250.00    0.4314E‐02 750.00    0.3070E‐01               3275.00    0.4269E‐02 775.00    0.2939E‐01               3300.00    0.4224E‐02 800.00    0.2818E‐01               3325.00    0.4181E‐02 825.00    0.2705E‐01               3350.00    0.4138E‐02 850.00    0.2601E‐01               3375.00    0.4096E‐02 875.00    0.2504E‐01               3400.00    0.4055E‐02 900.00    0.2413E‐01               3425.00    0.4015E‐02 925.00    0.2326E‐01               3450.00    0.3975E‐02 950.00    0.2245E‐01               3475.00    0.3936E‐02 975.00    0.2169E‐01               3500.00    0.3898E‐02 1000.00    0.2096E‐01               3525.00    0.3860E‐02 1025.00    0.2028E‐01               3550.00    0.3823E‐02 1050.00    0.1964E‐01               3575.00    0.3786E‐02 1075.00    0.1903E‐01               3600.00    0.3750E‐02 1100.00    0.1846E‐01               3625.00    0.3715E‐02 1125.00    0.1792E‐01               3650.00    0.3680E‐02 1150.00    0.1740E‐01               3675.00    0.3646E‐02 1175.00    0.1690E‐01               3700.00    0.3612E‐02 1200.00    0.1643E‐01               3725.00    0.3579E‐02 1225.00    0.1598E‐01               3750.00    0.3546E‐02 1250.00    0.1556E‐01               3775.00    0.3514E‐02 H214
1275.00    0.1515E‐01               3800.00    0.3483E‐02 1300.00    0.1476E‐01               3825.00    0.3452E‐02 1325.00    0.1439E‐01               3849.99    0.3421E‐02 1350.00    0.1404E‐01               3875.00    0.3391E‐02 1375.00    0.1370E‐01               3900.00    0.3361E‐02 1400.00    0.1337E‐01               3925.00    0.3332E‐02 1425.00    0.1305E‐01               3950.00    0.3303E‐02 1450.00    0.1275E‐01               3975.00    0.3275E‐02 1475.00    0.1246E‐01               4000.00    0.3247E‐02 1500.00    0.1218E‐01               4025.00    0.3219E‐02 1525.00    0.1192E‐01               4050.00    0.3192E‐02 1550.00    0.1166E‐01               4075.00    0.3165E‐02 1575.00    0.1141E‐01               4100.00    0.3139E‐02 1600.00    0.1117E‐01               4125.00    0.3113E‐02 1625.00    0.1094E‐01               4149.99    0.3087E‐02 1650.00    0.1071E‐01               4175.00    0.3062E‐02 1675.00    0.1050E‐01               4200.00    0.3037E‐02 1700.00    0.1029E‐01               4225.00    0.3013E‐02 1725.00    0.1009E‐01               4250.00    0.2988E‐02 1750.00    0.9894E‐02               4275.00    0.2964E‐02 1775.00    0.9706E‐02               4300.00    0.2941E‐02 1800.00    0.9524E‐02               4325.00    0.2918E‐02 1825.00    0.9347E‐02               4350.00    0.2895E‐02 1850.00    0.9177E‐02               4375.00    0.2872E‐02 1875.00    0.9012E‐02               4400.00    0.2850E‐02 1900.00    0.8853E‐02               4425.00    0.2828E‐02 1925.00    0.8698E‐02               4450.00    0.2806E‐02 1950.00    0.8548E‐02               4475.00    0.2785E‐02 1975.00    0.8402E‐02               4500.00    0.2764E‐02 2000.00    0.8261E‐02               4525.00    0.2743E‐02 2025.00    0.8124E‐02               4550.00    0.2722E‐02 2050.00    0.7991E‐02               4575.00    0.2702E‐02 2075.00    0.7862E‐02               4600.00    0.2682E‐02 2100.00    0.7736E‐02               4625.00    0.2662E‐02 2125.00    0.7613E‐02               4650.00    0.2642E‐02 2150.00    0.7494E‐02               4675.00    0.2623E‐02 2175.00    0.7378E‐02               4700.00    0.2604E‐02 2200.00    0.7264E‐02               4725.00    0.2585E‐02 2225.00    0.7154E‐02               4750.00    0.2567E‐02 2250.00    0.7047E‐02               4775.00    0.2548E‐02 2275.00    0.6943E‐02               4800.00    0.2530E‐02 2300.00    0.6840E‐02               4825.00    0.2512E‐02 2325.00    0.6740E‐02               4850.00    0.2494E‐02 2350.00    0.6643E‐02               4875.00    0.2477E‐02 2375.00    0.6548E‐02               4900.00    0.2460E‐02 2400.00    0.6455E‐02               4924.99    0.2443E‐02 2425.00    0.6365E‐02               4950.00    0.2426E‐02 2450.00    0.6277E‐02               4975.00    0.2409E‐02 2475.00    0.6191E‐02               5000.00    0.2393E‐02 2500.00    0.6107E‐02
H215
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ **********************  AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY  ********************* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED      SCALED 1‐HOUR      3‐HOUR      8‐HOUR     24‐HOUR      ANNUAL
CALCULATION          CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC        CONC PROCEDURE         (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3)     (ug/m3) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ FLAT TERRAIN       0.2761      0.2761      0.2761      0.2761         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE        150.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY   0.2109      0.2109      0.2109      0.2109         N/A DISTANCE FROM SOURCE          1.00 meters
H216

EXHIBIT B
H217

Letter EMY
WI #25-001
August 18, 2025

Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

SUBJECT: Wildflower 2 Section 15183 Consistency Memorandum Antioch, CA
Response to Staff Report Comments

Dear Ms. McGuire,

As requested, we have reviewed Staff Report agenda item 6 -1 for the August 20, 2025 Planning Commission meeting in Antioch, California. The Staff Report includes a response to our letter dated July 12th, 2024, regarding our belief that the noise impact analysis for the Wildflower 2 Townhomes Project in Antioch, CA has the potential to create significant impacts from construction and operational noise as well as construction vibration on the surrounding community that are peculiar to the Project.

The City’s response to comment 1-8 states that a “noise attenuation study is not required, as the City has determined that the project would not result in a significant increase in noise and because the project is not located in an area exceeding the General Plan noise standards.” The Housing Element EIR claims that compliance with General Plan Policy 11.8.2 would ensure impacts remain less than significant. However, Policy 11.8.2 states that for developments in areas exceeding the noise levels identified in the General Plan noise objectives, or where the development of proposed uses could result in a significant increase in noise, General Plan Policy 11.8.2(f) requires a detailed noise attenuation study to be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to determine appropriate mitigation and ways to incorporate such mitigation into project design and implementation. (Housing Element pg. IV.L -13). The City has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the Project will not exceed General Plan noise objectives or require a noise attenuation study.

Specifically, no baseline noise measurements were taken. Baseline noise measurements are the preferred way to determine background noise sources. Noise measurements are required to determine if General Plan noise objectives are exceeded because they provide objective, site-specific data on existing and potential sound levels in the community. General Plan noise objectives are established to protect public health, safety, and quality of life, but these objectives cannot be meaningfully evaluated without quantifiable inf ormation. Noise impacts vary depending on surrounding land uses, traffic volumes, building design, and other environmental factors, making actual measurements necessary to assess compliance with established thresholds. Without reliable H218

WILSON IHRIG
Slatten Ranch Townhomes
Comments on Noise Analysis

measurements, the City risks relying on assumptions that may underestimate or overstate impacts, leading to flawed planning decisions and inadequate mitigation , in addition to no proof that the project does not result in a significant increase in noise.

The City also failed to address the Project’s peculiar construction and vibration impacts. Our previous letter demonstrated how construction noise could reach as high as 85 dBA , and that construction vibration is within the buffer zone required by the Housing Element DEIR . Construction activities have the potential to create significant impacts compared to reasonable criteria for daytime construction noise and damage to buildings due to construction.

For construction noise, General Plan Policy 11.8.2 “requires development adjacent to occupied noise sensitive land uses to implement a construction -related noise mitigation plan and requires that all construction equipment utilize noise reduction features” Additionally, the construction-related noise mitigation plan should “depict the location of construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment will be mitigated during construction through the use of noise reduction methods” that are listed in General Plan Policy 11.8.2 (m) (DEIR page IV.L-12).

The City’s response to comment 1-9 details several design guidelines that reduce noise. None of these are guaranteed to reduce noise and depend on the unique characteristics of each site. ‘Noise reduction features are already included in construction noise source models of the cited FTA database, which takes its source values from measurements of modern equipment already equipped with mufflers. Nighttime construction restrictions do not mitigate daytime noise level s. Strategic staging will reduce the length of unnecessary noise impacts, but will not mitigate the worst -case construction noise scenarios when necessary activities occur adjacent to sensitive uses.

The Staff Report states that any “proposed development adjacent to occupied noise sensitive land uses shall implement a construction -related noise mitigation plan that depicts the location of construction equipment storage and maintenance areas, and documents methods to be employed to minimize noise impacts on adjacent noise sensitive land uses.” A construction -related noise mitigation plan alone is not sufficient to reduce impacts under CEQA guidelines because CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures be identified, analyzed, and implemented to the extent possible—not just as broadly planned. A plan submitted after project approval does not ensure that noise impacts will actually be reduced to less-than-significant levels, since effectiveness depends on site-specific conditions, timing, equipment, and enforcement. CEQA requires substantial evidence demonstrating that proposed measures will meaningfully reduce noise exposure; simply adopting a mitigation plan without quantifying reductions or evalua ting feasibility leaves uncertainty about whether impacts are adequately addressed. In other words, compliance with CEQA is based on demonstrated effectiveness, not on the existence of a plan alone.

Finally, the City’s response to comment 1 -12 states that the “requirement for a screening level vibration analysis is based specifically on the use of impact pile drivers during construction.” The Staff Report states that pile driving is not typically used on residential projects. If this is the case, this should be included somewhere within the terms of approval for the project. Without this assurance that pile drivers will not be used during Project construction , the proposed project may not follow the mitigation required by the Housing Element DEIR and could generate significant impacts.

H219

WILSON IHRIG
Slatten Ranch Townhomes
Comments on Noise Analysis

Therefore, the City fails to adequately address my previous comments related to the 15183 Consistency Memo’s inadequate noise impact analysis. The City fails to establish baseline noise measurements or conduct a noise attenuation study to properly identify potentially significant noise impacts peculiar to the Project or Project site. The City also fails to adequately address the Project’s significant and peculiar construction noise and vibration impacts, which must be analyzed in an EIR prior to Project approval.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG

Jack Meighan
Associate
meighan -wildflower response to staff report comments.docx H220

560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga | Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale Houston | Jacksonville | Los Angeles | Miami | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland Richmond | San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach

October 1, 2025
Mayor Ron Bernal
Vice Mayor Louie Rocha
Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker
Councilmember Donald P. Freitas
Councilmember Monica Wilson
City of Antioch
200 H Street
Antioch, CA 94531

VIA EMAIL
Re: Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Project and Slatten Ranch Townhomes Project – Legal Obligations Under State Housing Law
Dear Mayor Bernal and Councilmembers:

Holland & Knight represents DeNova Homes, Inc. (the “Applicant”) with respect to the 159-unit project proposed at the Wildflower Station site at the east side of Hillcrest Avenue and the north side of Wildflower Drive in the City of Antioch (the “City”) , as well as the 129- unit project proposed at the 6.41-acre vacant site identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 056-120-098 located north of Wicklow Way and east of Slatten Ranch Road (collectively, the “Projects” and “Project Sites”). The firm’s West Coast Land Use and Environmental Group focuses particularly on enforcing California’s recently reformed housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) and Housing Element Law.
1 In particular, the undersigned litigated the leading
published authority regarding the HAA, California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v.

City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820 (“California Renters”), as well as other successful litigation against municipalities for violating state housing law, including but not limited to TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC v. City of Calabasas (“TNHC Canyon Oaks ”), Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCP01819 (Nov. 27, 2023) (attached hereto).

The Projects comply with all of the City’s numerous objective planning standards, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact. Not only do the Projects fully conform to all of the City’s objective standards, the Project S ites were specifically identified by the City in its Housing Element as locations where the City could be relied upon to produce housing of exactly the type proposed by the Applicant. Despite this, o n September 23, 2025, the City Council voted to disapprove both Projects and directed staff to prepare denial findings, with the matter continued to October 28 for formal action. As was explained to the Council at the hearings on these matters, disapproving the

1 Gov. Code § 65589.5 et seq.

H221
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

Projects is unambiguously and inarguably unlawful. The Council's decision to disapprove these Projects violates, inter alia, the HAA, Housing Element Law, and the No Net Loss Law, and could expose the City not just to mandamus relief, attorney’s fees, fines, and damages, but also to having its Housing Element de -certified and the City exposed to the “Builder’s Remedy.” This letter explains why the only lawful path forward is approval of the Projects.

The Applicant remains, as it has been throughout the application process, willing to work with stakeholders to take reasonable steps to meet community concerns. 2 The Applicant worked closely
with City staff to design its Projects in a way to ensure it considered community concerns and local priorities. However, this collaborative process must begin from the starting point expectation that all sides will comply with the law. The Council’s action appeared to reflect a lack of willingness to do so, as well as a determination to take unlawful actions. In the hopes that the Council may have acted without a full awareness of the limits imposed by state law, we write to urge the Council to reverse course and approve the Projects at the October 28 meeting.

I. The State’s Housing Crisis and the Purpose of State Housing Law.

As you likely know, California faces a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. Despite decades of legislative efforts to increase housing production, the state has consistently failed to build housing in quantities approximating regional needs. This shortfall has particularly pernicious effects on lower-income households, who are priced out of stable housing and forced into overcrowded conditions or homelessness.

As the problem continues to grow exponentially worse , the Legislature found and declared that the “housing supply and affordability crisis” ha s reached “historic proportions,” and that “[t]he consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront the crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” Stats. 2017, ch. 378, § 1.5 (amending Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)).

Additionally, the California Legislature has long found and declared that “[t]he excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” Stats. 1990, ch. 1439, § 1 (amending Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(1)). The Legislature further found that “ [m]any local governments do not give

2 As an example of a legitimate concern raised at the Council hearing by a commenter who pointedly did not urge disapproval of the Project, the Applicant is aware that a neighboring homeowners association has requested construction of a gate for the adjacent neighborhood. The Applicant is willing to work cooperatively on this issue with the City and the neighboring community to ensure a compatible development. Specifically, although the Applicant does not believe it could be lawfully required to cover the full cost of constructing such a gate, the Applicant is willing to do so, provided only that the neighboring homeowners association affirmatively confirms its commitment to provide for the gate’s ongoing maintenance. This is the type of constructive dialogue that should occur in the context of project approval.

H222
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(1)(D).

The HAA and related statutes are designed to address this crisis by ensuring “reasonable certainty … to all stakeholders” about the constraints a municipality will impose upon housing. California Renters at 842. As the Court of Appeal has noted, the HAA “does not wrest control from local governments so much as require them to proceed by way of clear rules adopted in advance, rather than by ad hoc decisions to accept or reject proposed housing.” Id. at 851. The pertinent provisions of the HAA actually preserve local control because these provisions reserve to cities the ultimate discretion to decide where and under what objective standards housing will be built. But once a city has made those decisions and a compliant project is proposed, state law requires the City to honor its commitments.

Here, the City engaged in exactly the type of bait and switch behavior that state law forbids. The City identified the Project Sites for multifamily housing in its Housing Element, relied upon these sites to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, and rezoned the parcels to facilitate multifamily development. Then, when the Applicant made the significant investment necessary to advance projects that would fulfill the City’s own adopted plans, the Council denied the Projects for reasons that were complet ely unrelated to whether the Projects complied with objective standards. The Council's decision to disapprove was clearly and inarguably unlawful.

II. The City Violated the Housing Accountability Act.

The HAA provides that when a proposed housing development complies with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application is deemed complete, the local agency may disapprove the project only if it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1). The City bears the burden of proof that its decision conformed to the HAA. Gov. Code § 65589.6; California Renters, 68 Cal.App.5th at 837. “Objective” is defined very narrowly to mean “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9)), and a project must be found consistent with objective standards unless a city can meet the high burden to show that there is no substantial evidence from which any reasonable person could conclude the Projects comply with applicable objective standards. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4); California Renters, 68 Cal.App.5th at 845.

There is no dispute that both Projects comply with all applicable objective standards. To begin with, not one Councilmember at the September 23 meeting claimed the Projects were noncompliant with the City’s code. Nor could the Council have done so.

H223
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

The Projects are “deemed” to meet all such standards as a matter of law. Since the HAA only requires the Projects to be consistent with “objective” standards not involving personal judgment or discretion, the law expects code consistency to be determined at the beginning of the application process, not at the end of the approval process. Under Section 65589.5(j)(2) of the Government Code, if a local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent with applicable standards, it must provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the specific provisions and explaining the reasons for the alleged inconsistency within 30 days of a complete application for projects with 150 or fewer units or within 60 days of a complete application for projects with more than 150 units. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A)(i)-(ii). The Slatten Ranch Project contains 129 units, triggering the 30-day deadline. The Wildflower Station Project contains 159 units, triggering the 60-day deadline. If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation within these statutory time periods, the housing development project is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B). Here, the deadlines have long passed. Accordingly, both Projects are deemed to comply with all applicable standards as a matter of law.

SB 330 of 2019 further reinforced the requirement to apply clear rules in advance by providing housing project applicants with a clear vested right to be subject only to those objective standards in effect at the time the applicant submits a preliminary application. See Gov. Code § 65941.1. If the City were to attempt to impose any standard not in effect at the time the Applicant submitted the preliminary application for the Project, this would also violate the HAA. Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).

Moreover, the Projects conform to all objective standards as a matter of fact . City staff provided written and oral confirmation that both Projects comply with all objective development standards applicable to the sites. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of both Projects. At the City Council meeting, staff reiterated their findings of compliance with objective standards and their recommendation for approval. In light of the fact that so many reasonable people working for the City specifically found the Projects to conform with all objective standards, the Council could not have lawfully concluded that no reasonable persons could find the Projects compliant. Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4); California Renters, 68 Cal.App.5th at 845.

Because the Projects comply with objective standards, the only permissible basis on which the Council could have based its denial is if it had met the very high burden to make the findings and amass the evidence required to make the “public health and safety” findings in Section 65589.5(j)(1) of the Government Code. For good reason, the Legislature has specifically expressed its expectation that these occasions will only arise infrequently. Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3) (“It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.”).

H224
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

Here, the Council made no findings regarding specific adverse impacts on public health or safety as required by the HAA . The Council’s decision was clearly and unambiguously based on subjective preferences regarding the Project. City staff cannot now supply a basis for the Council’s decision that was not the reason articulated by the Council. Findings cannot serve as a post hoc rationalization for a decision already made . Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515. It is a foundational principle of administrative law that post hoc justifications are not available to defend agency action. Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020) 591 U.S. 1, 20-24. In any litigation, a reviewing court will look to the actual basis of the Council’s decision, and will not countenance any attempt by the City to manufacture findings that could support denial which were clearly not embraced by the Council itself. The HAA requires findings to suppor t the decision at the time it is made, not findings created afterward to rationalize a predetermined outcome.

Regardless, there is no valid basis on which the Council could have met the heavy burden to make the findings, and amass the evidence, on which to base any disapproval of the Projects . The Council was required to find, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the project would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety, and then was further required to find that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact. A generalized concern about health and safety will not suffice. A specific adverse impact must be a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed when the application was deemed complete. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).

The HAA imposes an extraordinarily high burden for these findings, as recognized in TNHC Canyon Oaks. That case involved a project location that (entirely unlike the Project Sites) actually did have some legitimate public safety concerns : namely, it was within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone near the site of the Woolsey Fire. The location further contained an ancient landslide requiring massive remedial grading, and opponents presented evidence about evacuation route capacity and fire risk that the court acknowledged raised “ important wildfire safety concerns.” Even these legitimate safety issues (entirely absent from the Projects before this Council ) were insufficient to permit disapproval under the HAA.

Here, by contrast, there are no public health or safety hazards related to the Projects, to say nothing of any “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions.” To the contrary, City s taff confirmed compliance with all applicable standards. And even if there were any public health or safety impacts, the City could not further prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no feasible way to mitigate those impacts. If Calabasas could not meet the HAA's exacting standard even with documented wildfire risks in a designated high hazard zone, Antioch cannot possibly meet that standard here. Any attempt to manufacture public health and safety findings on October 28 would be transparently pretextual as well as legally indefensible.

H225
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

If the City proceeds to finalize this decision, it will be potentially subject to substantial liabilities including but not limited to relief in mandamus (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)), attorney's fees and costs (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)), and monetary penalties of at least $10,000 per housing unit (Gov. Code § 65589.5(l)).

Furthermore, not only did the Court in TNHC Canyon Oaks conclude that Calabasas’s arguments were unavailing, the Court additionally held that the arguments were made in “bad faith,” exposing that city to compulsory project approval and a mandatory fivefold increase in applicable fines assessed on the city. If the City of Antioch were to attempt to manufacture post hoc justifications for the Council’s denial, that decision would be even more likely to be seen by a reviewing court as a “bad faith” attempt to supply a basis for denial that did not reflect the City’s true thinking.

III. The City Violated Housing Element Law.

As HCD has stated, the City's Housing Element is “no longer a paper exercise – it’s a contract with the state of housing commitments for eight years .”
3 When a city certifies a Housing Element
identifying specific sites to accommodate its RHNA, that certification constitutes a commitment to facilitate development on those sites. The City was required to ensure that its sites were realistic and to remove governmental constraints to development on Housing Element sites. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5), (c)(1). Now, not less than two years after specifically promising that the Project Sites were realistically likely to produce housing development during the upcoming planning period, 4 the Council has itself acted to stop those Project Sites from being developed. Needless to say, disapproving compliant housing projects on sites specifically identified to meet the City’s RHNA directly contradicts the City’s Housing Element commitments.

These two Projects represent among the first Housing Element sites to come before the Council for project approval since the City's Housing Element was certified in October 2023. Both sites were specifically identified for multifamily housing in the Housing Element and were expressly relied upon to meet the City's RHNA obligations. The City undertook rezoning of these parcels to facilitate multifamily development as part of the Housing Element adoption and associated General Plan and zoning amendment processes. By denying compliant projects on these sites without proper findings, the City is acting in bad faith with respect to its Housing Element commitments and is failing to implement its certified Housing Element in violation of state law.

This decision will render the City out of substantial compliance with Housing Element Law, potentially triggering the Builder's Remedy under Government Code S ection 65589.5(d). The Builder's Remedy allows developers to bypass local zoning and general plan requirements and build housing projects at significantly higher densities than would otherwise be allowed when a jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element. Under the Builder's Remedy, projects

3 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd/newsroom/hcd-strengthens-efforts-to-increase-housing-accountability 4 antiochca.gov/317/Housing-Element (“HCD certified the City of Antioch's Housing Element on October 12, 2023.”)
H226
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

become largely exempt from local land use regulations that would normally constrain development, and cities effectively lose local control over their land use planning.

Ironically, in the interest of preserving local control, the Council's decision may very well result in stripping the City of the ability to control development. If the City cannot be trusted to implement its own adopted plans, developers will be entitled to develop without having to comply with plans the City adopts. The City will have only itself to blame for this loss of local control.

IV. The City Failed to Make Required No Net Loss Findings.

Lastly, Government Code S ection 65863 prohibits local governments from taking actions that reduce residential capacity on Housing Element sites below the number needed to accommodate remaining RHNA obligations without identifying and zoning sufficient additional sites to compensate for lost capacity (“No Net Loss” law). Before reducing capacity on Housing Element sites, the City must make findings supported by substantial evidence that adequate sites remain available with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of regional housing need.

The City made no such findings. The City undertook no analysis of whether adequate alternative sites exist to meet the City's RHNA obligations if these two Projects are denied. As these are among the first Housing Element sites to come before the Council for project approval since Housing Element certification in October 2023, this violation is particularly egregious. The City cannot comply with its Housing Element commitments if it denies among the first projects that come forward on sites the City itself identified and rezoned for this purpose.

V. Conclusion
The City is on the verge of committing clear violations of the HAA, Housing Element Law, and No Net Loss requirements. These violations strike at the heart of the state's housing framework by denying compliant housing projects on sites the City itself identified and rezoned to meet RHNA obligations.

If the City proceeds with denial, the Applicant is prepared to pursue all available remedies, including mandamus relief to compel project approval, monetary damages under the HAA's mandatory fine provisions of at least ten thousand dollars per housing unit ( Gov. Code § 65589.5(l)), recovery of attorney's fees and costs (Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)), and inverse condemnation damages for the unconstitutional taking of property rights. For 288 combined units, HAA fines alone would reach $2.88 million.

These fines would be multiplied by five, for a total of over $14 million, if the City is found to have acted in “bad faith.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(l). As set forth supra, this “bad faith” fivefold multiplier would very likely apply here because the Councilmembers’ grounds for denying the Project were “entirely without merit,” and because it would be a transparently bad faith action if staff were to H227
City of Antioch City Council
October 1, 2025

attempt to supply any different basis for denial that did not reflect the Council’s reasons for rejecting the Projects. TNHC Canyon Oaks at p. 6.

We expect that the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) will be closely monitoring the October 28 meeting and is empowered to coordinate with the Attorney General's Office regarding enforcement action. HCD can also review whether these violations warrant reconsideration of the City's Housing Element compliance and good faith implementation of Housing Element programs.

The choice before the Council is clear: approve these legally compliant projects on Housing Element sites as state law requires or expose the City to substantial legal and financial liability while undermining its ability to control future development. The Applicant hopes the Council will choose the path of compliance with applicable law. If it does, the Applicant remains committed to working with stakeholders to ensure these Projects are developed in a manner that meets community needs and effectuates the City’s adopted plans and policies.

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

Daniel R. Golub
William E. Sterling
Scott L. Gesundheit

HOLLAND & KNIGHT
Attachment: TNHC Canyon Oaks LLC v. City of Calabasas, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCP01819 (Nov. 27, 2023)

CC: Derek Cole, City Attorney
Zoe Merideth, Planner
Kevin Scudero, Community Development
Bessie Marie Scott, City Manager
Department of Housing and Community Development

H228
H229
H230
H231
H232
H233
H234
H235
H236
H237
H238
H239
H240
H241
H242
H243
H244
H245
H246
H247
H248
Oct 27, 2025
City o
f Antioch
200 H St.

Antioch, CA 94509
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project “Wildflower Station Townhomes 2” By ema
il: [email protected]
Cc: bsmith@a
ntiochca.gov; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Antioch C
ity Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 159-unit housing development project “Wild
flower Station Townhomes 2” at APNs 052-140-013, -014, -015, and -016, located east of Hillcrest Avenue and west of Wildflower Station Place. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

The HAA
provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would or reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety impacts that exceed written standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).) Of note, the H
AA authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees and costs both to applicants and to housing organizations if they prevail in litigation to enforce the HAA. (Id. at subd. (k).) As an example, the City of Berkeley was fined $2.6 million and forced to pay $1.4 million in 2201 Broad
way, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
ATTACHMENT "I"
I1
attorneys’ fees after incorrectly denying a housing development project in violation of the HAA.

F
urthermore, the project is exempt from further state environmental review pursuant to section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.

County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
A
s you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, it will help the city’s businesses, and it will ease the competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

C
alHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

S
incerely,
D
ylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
J
ames M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
2 of 2

I2

Octo
ber 28, 2025
Via E
mail and Hand Delivery
City Council
City of Antioch
P.O. Box 5007
200 H Street
Antioch, CA 94531
Email: [email protected]
Via
Email Only
Kevin Scudero, Acting Director
Zoe Meredith, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]
Re: A
genda Item 6: Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project (TM-02; AR-23-05)
Dea
r Honorable Mayor Bernal, Members of the City Council, Mr. Scudero, and Ms.

Merideth:

On b
ehalf of Contra Costa Residents for Responsible Development (“Contra Costa Residents” or “Residents”) we submit these comments to the Antioch City Council (“Council”) on Agenda Item 6: Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project (TM-02; AR-23-05) (“Wildflower Project” or “Project”) proposed by DeNova Homes, Inc. (“Applicant”). Contra Costa Residents appreciates the opportunity to participate in the Project’s environmental review and land use permitting process. This process is central to CEQA, State land use law, and Constitutionally protected actions intended to petition local government to redress community concerns.
1 We appreciate the City’s consideration of Residents’
1 Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 138 (1961); United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669-72 (1965).

I3
comments during this process, and appreciate the City’s reasoned responses to those comments, which have resulted in some improved disclosure and mitigation of the Project’s impacts.
.

These comments seek to clarify and correct false statements made in a letter (“HK Letter” or “letter”) submitted to the Council by Applicant’s Attorneys Daniel R. Golub, William E. Sterling, and Scott L. Gesundheit of Holland & Knight, dated September 23, 2025.
2 The HK Letter is a specious and legally unsupported attempt to intimidate the City and chill public participation by attempting to discredit Contra Costa Residents’ participation in the Project’s land use approval process.3 The HK Letter relies on misstatements of fact and law by contending that union workers and local residents are not entitled to raise environmental concerns about projects in their community. In particular, HK alleges that Residents’ union members submit CEQA comments and withdraw them if they get labor agreement, and that Residents’ union members use CEQA to pursue non-environmental goals. 4 HK is
aware that both claims are factually false, legally inaccurate, and have been rejected by local governments and the courts. HK’s purported “examples” demonstrate the unsupported nature of their claims:

1750 Broadway (Oakland)
In 2019, a coalition of unions and local community members, and a coalition low-income residents, appealed the City of Oakland’s approval of a 37-story high rise tower based on inadequate CEQA review, including inadequate disclosure and mitigation of public health and environmental impacts related to contaminated soil, toxic air contaminants and noise from project construction, and other impacts.

The City Council agreed with appellants’ claims, and added the following mitigation to the 2020 project approvals: “1. soil sampling 2. Additional dust monitoring 3. Window replacement 4. Relocation Plan/Assistance 5. Local hire/participation 6. Local Apprenticeship 7. Private binding agreements 2 Similar letters were submitted by Holland & Knight on 9-23-25 for two projects on the Council’s 10- 28-25 agenda, the Slatten Ranch and Wildflower Projects. The HK Letters are available at https://www.antiochca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/207?fileID=1369 (Slatten Ranch Staff Report) and https://www.antiochca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/209?fileID=1371 (Wildflower Staff Report).
3 Exhibit A, Holland & Knight Letter (HK Letter).
4 HK Letter, pp. 2-3.

I4
submitted to the City Administration.5 The unions’ participation and expert evidence provided to the City achieved these results.

HK is fully aware of this outcome – their legal representative attended the 1750 Broadway City Council hearing and made the same false allegations attacking the unions that HK does here, which allegations were similarly rebutted (see attached 1750 Broadway comment letter).

B
ronson Residential Tower Project
In 2022, a coalition of unions and local residents commented on errors and omissions in the City of Los Angeles’ CEQA review of air quality and noise impacts for a residential project. As a result of direct discussions with the project applicant, the coalition entered into a legally enforceable environmental settlement agreement in which the applicant agreed to implement environmental measures to further reduce air quality and noise impacts (see attached 6/22/22 letter to City of Los Angeles).

C
harles Drew Medical Building Project
In 2022, a coalition of unions and local residents commented on errors and omissions in the City of Los Angeles’ Mitigated Negative Declaration for construction of a health education building. Their comments resulted in improved disclose and mitigation of environmental impacts. 6 T
he facts demonstrate that union participation in the CEQA and land use process is the opposite of HK’s claims. The union members of Residents build projects in the East Bay communities in which they live. They support sustainable development, and participate in the land use approval process to ensure that public health and environmental impacts are mitigated before projects are built, and they do not drop environmental concerns for labor agreements. They have demonstrated this up and down the state over the last 40 years.
7 H
K’s claims are repeated attempts to obstruct Constitutionally protected public participation in the CEQA and land use permitting process. These claims have no credibility, ignore the significant contributions that unions and community coalitions have made to environmental health and safety throughout the State 5 See attached 3/3/2020 Minutes of Oakland City Council hearing, Items 9.1 and 9.2. 6 HK’s remaining attachments are letters of unknown origin and have no affiliation to Residents, its members, or its comment letters on any projects.
7 Attached hereto are comments provided to the State’s Little Hoover Commission in 2023 providing dozens of examples of environmental benefits and mitigation achieved by unions in the CEQA process.

I5
through involvement in CEQA proceedings, and are a basic abuse of process that should not be given any weight by the City Council.

I. C
EQA Does Not Prohibit Further CEQA Review in the Form of an EIR When There Are Project Specific Significant and Peculiar Impacts
T
he HK Letter claims that CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 automatically exempts the Project from further CEQA review and, as such, Contra Costa Residents’ prior request that the City remand the Project back to Staff to prepare an EIR is “contrary to law.”8 This is a misstatement of the law.

P
ublic Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 are not absolute exemptions from environmental review. Section 21083.3 is the statutory authority, and Section 15183 is the implementing regulation that provides a partial exemption to CEQA review. Together, these provisions streamline CEQA review for projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. 9 However, these statutes do not preclude preparation of a project-level EIR when new, significant, or peculiar environmental effects are identified. In fact, the statutes specifically state that further environmental review “might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.”
10 A
dditionally, HK misinterprets the Court’s holding in Hilltop Group, Inc. v County of San Diego.11 Hilltop does not preclude an agency from requiring preparation of a project-specific EIR for a project subject to Section 15183. Rather, it states that “Guidelines Section 15183 may require environmental review of aspects of a project not adequately covered by a program EIR, and exempt other aspects of the same project from further review because the environmental effects were previously adequately addressed.”
12 Section 15183 “provides a partial exemption
that limits the issues that must be discussed in a project-level EIR to significant impacts that were not covered in the prior planning or zoning EIR.”13 If all the project’s significant impacts were discussed in the previous EIR, or will be mitigated 8 HK Letter, pp. 5, 8.
9 PRC §21083.3; 14 CCR §15183.
10 PRC §21083.3; 14 CCR §15183.
11 (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 914.
12 Hilltop at p. 914.
13 Id.

I6
through application of uniform policies or standards, a project-specific EIR is not required.14

Furthermore, in Hilltop, the Court of Appeal found that the County of San Diego improperly required preparation of an EIR for a recycling facility consistent with the County’s 2011 General Plan Update.
15 The Court found a lack of
substantial evidence to support the County’s finding that the project would result in peculiar impacts in the areas of aesthetics, noise, traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality.
16 Therefore, the Court held that the County’s decision to require an EIR for the Project was improper.17 Importantly, the decision turned on a lack of substantial evidence showing project-specific impacts—not on a legal prohibition against preparing an EIR under Section 15183.18

Thus, Hilltop confirms that when a project may cause peculiar or site-specific impacts not addressed in a prior programmatic EIR, further environmental review, including preparation of a tiered or supplemental EIR, may be required. This interpretation is consistent with CEQA’s broader framework for tiering, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21068.5, which allows agencies to rely on prior EIRs for general policy or programmatic issues while focusing subsequent environmental analysis on new or site-specific effects.
19 Although Section 21083.3 is not technically
a tiering provision, but rather a CEQA “exemption,” it functions as a streamlining procedure intended to “reduce[] the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.”
20 Thus, the results of Section 21083.3 are much like those of tiering.21

Therefore, contrary to HK’s claims, even when a Project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, a project-level EIR may be required when substantial evidence indicates that new, peculiar, or more severe impacts will result that were not analyzed in the prior EIR.

14 14 CCR § 15183(a), (c).
15 Hilltop at pp. 927-928.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4 th 1156, 1171. 20 Id. at p. 912.
21 Id.

I7
II. HK Misinterprets Contra Costa Residents’ Expert’s Air Quality Analysis

Contra Costa Residents’ prior comments on the Project included expert analysis regarding Project-specific diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. The HK Letter makes false and misleading statements regarding SWAPE’s analysis.

First, it claims SWAPE’s analysis is “admittedly intentional in its overstatement of potential health risks.”22 This is not true. SWAPE performed a conservative screening level Health Risk Analysis (“HRA”) as a way to estimate Project impacts in the absence of any quantitative analysis by the City. As SWAPE explained, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance state that AERSCREEN is the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments. This is the official guidance SWAPE followed when performing its analysis.

Second, the HK Letter claims that “SWAPE’s analysis overlooks that the Project will implement Mitigation Measure AIR-3a, which requires use of Tier 4 off- road diesel equipment….”
23 This is also untrue. SWAPE conducted its analysis
assuming that Tier 4 equipment would be used, and its comments expressly disclosed this assumption.

III. HK Misstates Contra Costa Residents’ Expert’s Noise Analysis

Contra Costa Residents’ prior comments also included expert analysis regarding Project-specific construction and operation related noise impacts.24 The HK Letter makes several incorrect and misleading statements regarding Mr.

Meighan’s analysis.

First, the HK Letter states that the Project “does not include nay operational noise-generating uses outside of typical residential uses.” Mr. Meighan clarifies that his analysis did not assume any operational noise sources that are not typical for residential uses.
25 22 HK Letter, p. 10.
23 HK Letter, p. 7.
24 Exhibit B, Jack Meighan Comments (“Meighan Comments”). 25 Meighan Comments, p. 1.

I8
Second, the HK Letter states that HVAC units will be shielded to decrease noise. Mr. Meighan’s comment letter dated July 12, 2025, expressly assumed a 4dB reduction from the shield of mechanical noise to account for this fact.26

Third, The HK Letter claims that Contra Costa Residents’ “own ‘evidence’ fails to rebut the City’s sound conclusion that the Project is not in an area exceeding the noise levels identified in the General Plan noise objectives” because Mr.

Meighan’s calculated operational noise levels of 53 dBA would not exceed the objective noise level of 60 dBA CNEL identified in the General Plan for multi-family residential uses.
27 However, as Mr. Meighan explains, his calculation of 53 dBA was based on an hourly Leq level, not a CNEL.28 These two different metrics are not comparable.29 However, Mr. Meighan states that if the 53 dBA was steady over 24 hours, the CNEL would exceed this 60 CNEL threshold.30

Fourth, the HK Letter’s states that construction-related noise would be mitigated to less than significant levels by implementing the City Code’s requirement to limit construction activities to certain daytime hours. These time restrictions only affect noise during the night.
31 As Mr. Meighan explains, this is
immaterial to the concerns Mr. Meighan raised in his prior comments, which focus on daytime construction noise.
32 Finally, the HK Letter states that the Project will have to “implement a construction-related noise mitigation plan requiring the use of noise reduction methods and limitation on haul truck deliveries to and from the Project site.” Mr.

Meighan’s comments did not raise concerns about on-haul truck noise. 33 IV. Labor Unions Like Contra Costa Residents Have a Direct Interest in Enforcing CEQA

HK’s letter attempts to discredit Contra Costa Residents’ members participation in the CEQA process by contending that Contra Costa Residents’ member unions are trying to “exact concessions from the Applicant” and would withdraw their Appeal for a project labor agreement.
34 HK’s letter also asserts that the union members of
26 Meighan Comments, p. 1.
27 HK Letter, pp. 9-10.
28 Meighan Comments, p. 1.
29 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
30 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
31 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
32 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
33 Meighan Comments, p. 2.
34 HK Letter, p. 2.

I9
Contra Costa Residents are not really concerned about the public health and environmental impacts of the Project, and for that reason the issues they have raised in the CEQA review process should be disregarded. 35 These statements are
false. As we explained in our previous comments to this Council, Contra Costa Residents’ members have a direct interest in enforcing the State’s environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members and have the same rights to raise their concerns about the Project’s environmental and public health impacts as any member of the public.

Unions and their members have long understood that community and worker safety and environmental protection are essential to long-term sustainable development and a health construction economy. For these reasons, Contra Costa Residents’ members participate in local environmental permitting and regulatory proceedings to advocate for responsible and sustainable development that will protect their members and the communities in which they live. This advocacy has produced stronger environmental protections, lessened the adverse impacts of individual projects, resulted in greater community benefits and led to more informed decision-making – a fundamental goal of citizen participation in the CEQA process.

V. Judicial Recognition of Union Participation in the CEQA Process

CEQA was designed to ensure that projects thoroughly mitigate their environmental impacts through transparent public processes in order to “inform the public and [] responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.”
36 For this reason, the Legislature has clearly
explained that “public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.”37 Public participation, civic engagement, activism in their communities, and legal enforcement of basic rights are fundamental components of union participation.

Precisely as intended by the statute, union participation in CEQA challenges like this one has not only led to reduced environmental harm, it has led to greater public disclosure and more informed decision-making by agency officials.

The courts have recognized unions’ right to participate in the CEQA process and the benefits of union participation in environmental challenges. 38 The
35 Id. at pp. 2-3.
36 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1123. 37 14 CCR § 15201.
38 See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Ctrl. v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198 (“unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.”); Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v.

Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 (successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s I10
following cases are a few examples of successful CEQA actions brought or influenced by unions, including some cases in which Contra Costa Residents’ member unions have participated:

Supreme Court Decisions

1. Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 – Labor organizations and an environmental group brought a CEQA action against the air district challenging its issuance of permits enabling an oil refinery to produce ultra-low sulfur diesel. The Court agreed with the petitioners that increased use of existing equipment was to be evaluated as part of the project, not the baseline setting. The Court also agreed that the project was not merely a modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of an existing facility. The Court agreed that substantial evidence showed the potential for significant impacts, requiring preparation of an EIR.

2. Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 – Steelworker union and environmental group challenged forest logging plans in Humboldt County under CEQA and other environmental laws. The Supreme Court upheld the challenge, finding that the EIR for the sustainable yield plan failed to comply with CEQA because it lacked an adequate analysis of impacts on watersheds.

Court of Appeal Decisions

3. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 - Citizen group which included a grocery workers union challenged the City of Bakersfield approval of two Walmart “supercenters” on CEQA grounds. The court held that the EIRs for the projects were deficient in failing to correlate the projects’ adverse air quality impacts to resultant adverse health effects, and failing to analyze the projects’ cumulative and urban decay impacts. In change from clean to dirty fuel). In Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, a coalition of fishermen brought a CEQA challenge to stop sonic testing of the ocean floor, contending the testing harmed fish populations. The court stated, “[w]hile those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate environmental concern.” Id. at 170-71.

I11
upholding the citizen groups’ appeal, the court expressly held that “unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.”39

4. Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4 th
1357 – CEQA action brought by homeowners whose property would be adversely affected by an expansion of Oakland Airport. The homeowners relied heavily on evidence submitted by labor unions challenging the same airport expansion. The court held that an EIR must accurately describe the expansion, use the most accurate scientific methodology to calculate toxic impacts and include a noise analysis and health risk assessment of toxic impacts. Most of the Court’s conclusions were based on the testimony of experts retained by labor unions.

5. California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1225 – A coalition of labor and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the air district’s conclusion that no CEQA review was required prior to the District’s adoption of a rule authorizing road paving as a method to offset particulate air pollution. The groups argued that the rule did not assure maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment. The Court held that the District’s adoption was not exempt from CEQA and that the environmental effects of the rule were not too speculative for review.

6. Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867 – A CEQA lawsuit by union groups challenging the adequacy of an EIR for a proposed geothermal power plant. Relying on evidence submitted by California Unions for Reliable Energy regarding fugitive air pollution, the court held that the EIR contained inadequate information and analysis to support the EIR’s rejection of the unions’ proposed mitigation to reduce fugitive emissions.

7. Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 – successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s change from clean to dirty fuel.

8. Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153 – CEQA action brought by companies challenging State Lands 39 Id. at 1198.

I12
Commission decision to require an EIR for sonic testing of ocean floor that may harm fish populations. The court upheld the fishing coalition’s participation in the CEQA process, irrespective of their commercial interests in the affected fishing industry. As the court explained, fishermen “claim the size and quality of their catches have been impaired by petitioners’ activities. While those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact [that] marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate environmental concern.”
40 9. Plastic Pipe and Fittings Assoc. v. Calif. Building Standards Comm’n (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1390 - A coalition of labor and environmental organizations (California Pipe Trades Council, the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Environmental Health, and others) supported the California Building Standards Commission decision to require CEQA review prior to deciding whether to authorize the use of cross- linked polyethylene (“PEX”) plastic pipe. The groups were concerned that PEX allows toxic chemicals, including MTBE, benzene, and pesticides, to leach into drinking water. The plastic pipe and fittings association sued, but the Court upheld the Commission’s decision.

Trial Court Decisions

10. Citizens for Responsible Solar, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1718458 [Partially consolidated with Case No. RIC1718565] – Coalition which included California Unions for Reliable Energy brought a CEQA action challenging the EIR for an industrial solar photovoltaic plant to be located on former agricultural lands. The Court granted the petition, holding that the EIR failed to adequately analyze soil contamination impacts and mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl.

11. Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California v. County of Contra Costa (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, December 1, 2016) Case No. MSN15- 0381 [Consolidated for purposes of trial with Case No. MSN15-0345 and Case No. MSN15-0301] – A coalition of labor organizations brought a CEQA action challenging the County’s air quality analysis in 40 Id. at 171.

I13
its EIR for a refinery’s propane recovery project. The court agreed with the labor organizations that (1) the county’s conclusion regarding the Project’s air quality impacts from railcar emissions was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the county failed to consistently describe rail transportation of propane and butane; and (3) the county’s use of the prior shutdown of a process heater in the hydrogen plant as mitigation for the project’s NOx emissions was not supported by substantial evidence.

VI. Environmental Improvements Resulting from Union Participation

Unions have achieved substantial environmental and public health improvements participating in environmental proceedings in front of local, regional, and State agencies, particularly when union challengers support affected community coalitions.

Unions have participated in the public review of industrial, commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects since at least the early 1980s. That participation has resulted in binding environmental settlement agreements with project applicants, through the incorporation of additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval by lead agencies at the unions’ behest, and analytical improvements in hundreds of environmental review documents before projects were approved. The majority of these achievements are accomplished without litigation.

California unions have long participated in proceedings at the California Building Standards Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that new building materials and methods of construction are safe and effective and contribute to the state’s energy efficiency goals. This participation has resulted in plumbing pipe manufacturers changing pipe formulations to remove chloroform and eliminate chloroform leaching into drinking water. It has resulted in the adoption of measures to protect workers from the high-levels of exposure to toxic solvents that had been occurring at the time of installation. Of note, this union participation led to regulation of pipe cements to reduce VOC emissions in order to meet air quality goals. It has also resulted in new worker training and installation standards to ensure that consumers and utility ratepayers receive the energy savings they are paying for.

California unions have also participated in the permitting of new energy generation facilities by local agencies (including renewable and traditional energy facilities) and by the California Energy Commission over many decades, seeking stronger air quality, water conservation and toxic material controls on new energy I14
generation facilities. For example, union participation in environmental review of thermal solar power plants led to developers dropping plans to use fresh groundwater in favor of dry cooling or recycled water.41 Several mitigation measures advocated by the unions have since been adopted by the Commission, are now applied to all new projects, and have made many California energy facilities the cleanest and safest in the nation.

Union participation in solar photovoltaic permitting has led to mitigation of construction and operational impacts to air quality, biological resources, habitat, and public health.
42 California unions were also the first to identify the significance of exhaust emissions from construction equipment and to advocate that such equipment be required to use oxidizing soot filters to reduce emissions. The environmental settlement between CE Obsidian Energy, LLC, and CURE in 2003 included a requirement that all large construction diesel engines and drill rigs were required to be equipped with soot filters.
43 California Energy Commission staff now
routinely recommends that these filters be used to reduce construction emissions.

With regard to toxics, construction unions have historically advocated for investigation, disclosure and mitigation of contaminated soils, among other hazards and impacts, from construction of development projects. For example, in 2006, building trades unions challenged the City of Richmond’s approval of a condominium project without adequate investigation of contaminated soils. The unions worked tirelessly to reconcile discrepancies in agency reports. Ultimately, the Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to test the soil, even though the agency had already closed its investigation of the development site. DTSC then discovered antimony, a toxic metal that causes severe public health risks, in the soil 41 See Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water, available at:
https://www.cnbc.com/2009/09/30/alternative-energy-projects-stumble-on-a-need-for-water.html; California approves giant thermal solar plant, available at: https://www.cnet.com/news/california - approves-giant-thermal-solar-plant/; Genesis Power Plant https://newsroom.nexteraenergy.com/PG- E-joins-NextEra-Energy-Resources-to-celebrate-the-commercial-operation-of-the-Genesis-Solar- Energy-Center-April-2014?l=12.
42 While solar photovoltaic power plants can drastically cut California’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, they require development on hundreds to thousands of acres and have a variety of impacts on California’s resources. Unions’ participation in the public review process has resulted in developers mitigating environmental impacts to biological resources, state jurisdictional waters, soil and water quality, air quality and public health. Joint Statement of Palo Verde Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (July, 2010); Joint Statement of Palen Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (October, 2010). A coalition of labor and community members achieved similar results regarding the Panoche Valley Solar project. (Joint Statement of Panoche Valley Solar, LLC and San Benito Residents for Responsible Development (June 18, 2015).) 43 See Joint Statement of Obsidian Energy, LLC and the California Unions for Reliable Energy, July 2003.

I15
at levels that exceeded the threshold for hazardous waste in California. As a result, the developer agreed with the labor unions to implement additional mitigation to address the contamination, public health and air quality issues raised by the labor unions.
44 California unions were also the first to identify the danger of acrolein emissions (even before the State officially recognized the level of risk), and advocated that an oxidation catalyst be required to reduce this risk. 45 California unions have left their mark on water quality and water use. In San Diego, the hotel workers union obtained changes in the La Salle Hotel project that enabled public access to San Diego Bay and minimized impacts on water quality.46 Concerned with the use of Delta water for cooling for the High Desert Power Project, CURE cited State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 75-58 regarding the use of fresh water for power plant cooling. In the Sutter power plant case, CURE identified the significant impacts that would result if the project were cooled using groundwater.
47 CURE consistently advocated that the projects use dry air cooling, but the applicants claimed that this would be prohibitively expensive.

After CURE showed that the additional cost would be relatively modest, Calpine agreed to use 100% air cooling for the project at the Sutter plant.

Unions’ environmental achievements in CEQA proceedings are also explained in a 2005 report published by the Planning and Conservation League entitled Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize: Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act. 48 Labor unions’ long record of environmental achievement is well documented, and must be considered by this Commission.

VII. CONCLUSION

Thorough and accurate CEQA review is required for all discretionary development projects in the State, including housing projects, “regardless of 44 Contra Costa Times, Geluardi, John, Council OKs report on site for condos, RICHMOND: Group opts for more information on environmental impacts (May 4, 2006); Joint Statement of Toll Brothers, Inc., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 302, Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 104, Donald H. Brown and Javier Campos (May 2, 2006) . 45 AFC (98-AFC-04).
46 Joint Statement of La Salle Hotel Properties and UNITE HERE Local 30 (November, 2008). 47 See California Energy Com., Application for Certification for the Sutter Power Plant Project, Apr. 1999, p. 3.
48 Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize:, Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act, Planning and Conservation League, Project Manager and Acting Executive Director: Karen Douglas (2005), available at:
https://pcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CEQA-Everyday-Heroes-full_report.pdf.

I16
whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.”49 Union and community participation in the CEQA process is essential to ensuring that the CEQA process is conducted openly and accurately.

Contra Costa Residents appreciates the opportunity to participate in the public review and comment process that is central to CEQA. We submit this correspondence to correct misleading statements about CEQA, the Project’s impacts, and union participation in the environmental review and permitting process.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please place them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,

Alaura McGuire
Richard Franco

Attachments
ARM:acp
49 14 CCR § 15063(b)(1); Gov. Code § 65889.5(e).

I17

EXHIBIT A
I18
September 23, 2025
City of Antioch City Council
Ron Bernal, Mayor
200 H Street
Antioch, CA 94531
Re: Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Project – Antioch City Council Hearing, Agenda Item #5 (TM-02 and AR-23-05)
Dear Mayor Bernal and Councilmembers:

Holland & Knight represents DeNova Homes, Inc. (the “Applicant”) with respect to the 159-unit project proposed at the Wildflower Station site (“WFTH2” or the “Project”) at the east side of Hillcrest Avenue and the north side of Wildflower Drive (the “Project Site”) in the City of Antioch (the “City”). Our West Coast Land Use and Environmental Group focuses particularly on enforcing California’s recently reformed housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) and Housing Element Law.
1 As you know, state law imposes increasingly strict requirements upon cities to plan for regional housing needs and then to approve housing development projects that implement those plans. Here, the City of Antioch has done exactly as state law requires. Specifically, the City planned for regional housing growth in its Housing Element, identified sites where housing growth was anticipated and desirable, analyzed and disclosed the impacts of that growth in a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report, and is now processing individual project approvals through an environmental review process expressly sanctioned under state law. Now that the City is on the verge of approving the projects for which the City has already planned in its Housing Element, a group of labor unions have filed comments which invite the City to violate state housing law and expose the City to “Builder’s Remedy” by refusing to actually approve the housing for which the City has already planned and analyzed in a prior EIR that is now no longer subject to challenge. 2 It is in this context that we respond to the July 15, 2025 and August 19, 2025 letters to the Planning 1 Gov. Code §§ 65589.5 et seq.
2 Because the Staff Report well describes the limits imposed upon the Council by state housing law, there is no need to go into detail about the substantial limits that state law imposes upon the Project. However, we must note for the record that the City would violate housing laws including Housing Element Law and the HAA, and potentially expose the entire City to the “Builders’ Remedy” if it were to do as the Labor Unions demand by disapproving, delay or improperly conditioning the approval of the Project. As set forth in the staff report and related materials (and entirely undisputed by the Labor Unions), the Project fully conforms to all objective requirements in the City’s General Plan, zoning and Housing Element and as such it is fully protected by the H AA.

I19
Com
mission (the “Comment Letters”) submitted by coalition of labor unions (the “Labor Unions”). As set forth in this letter, these Comment Letters raise no legally valid issue about the City’s careful environmental review of this Project, and the Labor Union’s effort to delay the Project approvals should be seen as an attempt to use CEQA to extract benefits from the Project unrelated to environmental interests. This is the exact type of tactic about which the Legislature and the California courts have shown increasingly strong disapproval.

I. The Comment Letters Reflect an Effort to Extract a Labor Agreement from the Applicant.

As an initial matter, it is evident that the Comment Letters do not reflect a genuine concern for the environment, the proper application of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), 3 or
the adequacy of environmental review for the Project in particular. Rather, the Comment Letter s are part of an effort by labor organizations to extract concessions from the Applicant.4 Indeed, the Comment Letters themselves appear to be form letters, and are nearly identical to other letters prepared by Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo PC (“Adams Broadwell”), counsel for the Labor Unions. For example, an April 1, 2019 comment letter prepared by Adams Broadwell with respect to a housing project in the City of Oakland likewise challenged that City’s finding that the project was not entitled to the CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
5 As it does here, Adams Broadwell argued in that letter that the project would have significant unmitigated air quality and health impacts due to the release of diesel particulate matter by construction equipment, as well as significant unmitigated construction- related noise impacts, and thus did not qualify for the Section 15183 CEQA exemption. 6 Adams Broadwell and its clients
regularly submit such letters, and withdraw their complaints not when the alleged environmental issues are addressed, but rather when the project applicant enters into an agreement to engage union labor to develop their project.

The City may consider these practices when assessing the credibility of the arguments raised in the Comment Letter s and the opinions of the consultants the Labor Unions commissioned to oppose the Project .
7 Specifically, the City “is entitled to … disbelieve even uncontradicted 3 Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.
4 As the July 15, 2025 Comment Letter indicates, “Contra Costa Residents for Responsible Development” is comprised of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 302, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 159, Sheet Metter Workers Local 104, and Sprinkler Fitters Local 483. July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 3. 5 See East Bay Residents for Responsible Development, “Appeal to City Council re 1750 Broadway” (Apr. 1, 2019), at 11-21 (https://phonyuniontreehuggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019-04-01-Adams-Broadwell-Joseph- Cardozo-East-Bay-Residents-for-Responsible-Development-1750-Broadway-Project-City-of-Oakland-Letter.pdf); attached also as Exhibit A with other cited material.
6 Id. at 12-21.
7 A review of Adams Broadwell form letters also reveals a similar pattern of form analysis of air quality and public health from its affiliated consultant Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises (“SWAPE”).

I20
te
stimony of a witness if the witness has an interest in the matter under dispute.” Newberry Springs Water Assn. v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 740, 750; Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, 930. Further, courts “give the lead agency the benefit of the doubt on any legitimate, disputed issues of credibility.” Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 331.

Thus, the City may reasonably conclude that a coalition of labor unions has no genuine interest in, for example, the Project’s purported operational noise impacts on neighboring properties, and may discount the Comment Letters’ arguments and evidence on that point as not credible. The Unions and their commissioned consultants have made a number of assumptions in their analysis – for example, regarding the Project’s construction schedule, planned buildout, and anticipated construction equipment – which were never confirmed with the Project applicant, are not based on any actual knowledge about the Project, and as a result are not accurate. “[U]nsubstantiated opinion, even expert opinion, is not substantial evidence …” Dunning v. Clews (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 156, 174 (citation omitted) (also holding that an improperly brought CEQA action can give rise to a potentially viable claim for malicious prosecution not subject to protection by the anti-SLAPP statute).

Using CEQA to pursue non-environmental goals has always been highly disfavored in the law, but the Legislature’s most recent enactments put the question beyond any reasonable doubt: “ CEQA should not be used primarily for economic interests, to stifle competition, to gain competitive advantage, or to delay a project for reasons unrelated to environmental protection.” 8 The
Legislature so disfavors these types of CEQA claims that it has amended the HAA to all -but- prohibit an award of attorneys’ fees to petitioners who challenge such projects, even if the challenge is successful.9 If the Labor Unions were to litigate the CEQA issues they have raised, it will be seen by any reviewing court not as a legitimate effort to enforce environmental law but rather as an attempt to cause “delays to essential projects that are key to solving the state’s housing crisis and to strategic development that is necessary to maintain California’s position as the fourth largest economy in the world.”
10 II. The Project May Not Lawfully Be Required to Undergo Further CEQA Review.

Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code , which is implemented via CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, creates a firm statutory exemption from CEQA for the Project . As Guidelines Section 15183 states, “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR 8 Stats. 2025, Ch. 24, § 2(c),
9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(p)(1) (“It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2.”).
10 Stats. 2025, Ch. 24, § 2(a).

I21
wa
s certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.”11
The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element identified the Project Site in its inventory of sites for future multi-family development.
12 The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element, adopted by the City in February 2023 (the “Housing Element EIR”) , analyzed the environmental impacts associated with all sites identified in the Housing Element sites inventory, including the Project Site.
13 To the extent development of the Project and other projects analyzed in the Housing Element EIR were anticipated to result in significant and unavoidable impacts, the City exercised its discretion to adopt a statement of overriding considerations confirming that such impacts were acceptable in light of the important overriding consideration of complying with state housing law. The statute of limitations has long since lapsed to challenge the City’s Housing Element or Housing Element EIR, and both are now fully presumed legally valid. 14 The Project is “consistent with the development density” set forth in the Housing Element for the Project Site.15 After thorough analysis of the Project, City staff concluded that the Project will not have significant environmental impacts peculiar to the Project that were not analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. As such, Guidelines Section 15183 dictates that the Project shall not require additional environmental review.

Section 21083.3 of CEQA and Guidelines Section 15183 establish a CEQA exemption, meaning that “projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified” are not required to undergo any CEQA review, except to the limited extent necessary to ascertain “whether there are 11 Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15183(a) (emphasis added). 12 City of Antioch, 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Oct. 2023), at 6-18 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community-development/planning/housing-element/certified-housing-element.pdf). 13 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at III-20, III-32 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf). 14 Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65009(c)(2), the statute of limitations to challenge to the City Housing Element ran in 2023, 60 days after the Department of Housing and Community Development reported its findings on the Housing Element. See Dept. of Housing & Comm. Dev., Housing Element EIR Certification Letter (Oct. 12, 2023) (hcd- certification-letter.pdf). A challenge to the Housing Element EIR was also due in 2023, 30 days after the City’s January 2023 Notice of Determination filing for the Housing Element EIR. Pub. Res. Code § 21167(c); Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, §15112(c)(1); NOD for the Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice Elements Project EIR (Jan. 25, 2023) (https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2021110146/4). 15 July 16, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, Agenda Item 6-1, at 3-4 (“The R-25 High Density Residential zoning district allows for multiple-family development at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a maximum of 25 du/ac. Consistent with the R-25 district, the proposed project has a proposed net density of 20.05 du/ac.”).

I22
pr
oject-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. ”16 Thus, the Applicant may not lawfully be required to prepare an initial study —much less an EIR —as the Comment Letters request.17 Because the Project’s entitlement to the Section 15183 exemption is enforceable in mandamus, the Labor Unions’ request that the City require the Project to undergo CEQA review is an invitation to commit an actionable violation of the law.18 We request that the City Council disregard this invitation to err.

We note for completeness that the refusal to acknowledge a project’s entitlement to a CEQA exemption is a defined violation of the HAA, where the project meets certain qualifying criteria.19 The Project qualifies for this protection. 20 If the City Council were to agree with the Comment Letters and compel the Project to undergo further CEQA review, the Applicant expressly reserves the right to invoke these statutory protections.21
III. The City’s Determination that the Project Qualifies for the Section 15183 CEQA Exemption Is Supported by Substantial Evidence.

City staff prepared a thorough Section 15183 Consistency Memorandum (the “Consistency Memorandum”), which establishes that “the project has been adequately analyzed in the previous environmental review under CEQA and that further evaluation is not required.” 22 The Comment
Letters take issue with the Consistency Memorandum’s conclusions with respect to air quality and noise impacts. Contrary to the Comment Letter s’ assertions, substantial evidence supports the Consistency Memorandum’s analysis and conclusions, as set forth below.

A. Air Quality and Health Impacts.

The Comment Letter s allege that “the Project will have significant, unmitigated air quality and public health impacts that are more severe than previously analyzed.” 23 The Labor Unions specifically reference the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), 16 Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 912. 17 Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1186 (“Environmental review is required under CEQA only if a public agency concludes that a proposed activity is a project and does not qualify for an exemption. In that case, the agency must first undertake an initial study to dete rmine whether the project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment.’”) (quoting Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15063(a)). 18 See Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 927 (“The Board of Supervisors did not proceed in a manner required by law when they denied the exemption and failed to limit further environmental review to those effects enumerated in Guidelines section 15183, subdivision (b)(1) through (4).”). 19 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a).
20 See generally Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1)-(4).
21 Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(5).
22 July 16, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, Agenda Item 6-1, at 9. 23 July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 10.

I23
dis
cussing the health risks associated with DPM. 24 And, the Comment Letters reject as unsupported the Consistency Memorandum’s conclusion that the Project’s implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -3a (requiring the use of Tier 4 engines for off -road construction equipment, plus a preparation of a Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan) would ensure that no significant impacts peculiar to the Project exist.
25 As discussed, because the Project is consistent with the density set forth in the Housing Element, and the Housing Element EIR was certified, Section 15183 mandates that “the agency shall limit its examination of significant environmental effects which it determines: ‘ (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantia l new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.’”
26 As City sta
ff noted in response to the July 15, 2025 Comment Letter:

Mitigation Measure AIR -3a would be considered a uniformly applicable development policy or standard identified by the Housing Element EIR to substantially mitigate impacts associated with buildout of the Housing Element.

With compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-3a, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), the project’s impacts associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would not be considered peculiar.

Because impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations are not peculiar to the project site or project, in accordance with Section 15183(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project qualifies for exemption from further environmental review under CEQA. 27 In the August 19, 2025 Comment Letter, the Labor Unions purported to produce evidence showing that the Project’s DPM emissions “will have significant, unmitigated air quality and public health impacts that are more severe than analyzed in the Housing Element EIR.” 28 This argument appears
to invoke Section 15183(b)(4), which allows limited analysis to ascertain whether there are “previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which 24 July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 10-11.
25 July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 11.
26 Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 913 (quoting Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15183(b)(1)-(4)).
27 Response to Comment 1-6, Responses to Comments, page 32. 28 August 19, 2025 Comment Letter at 6.

I24
wa
s not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.”29
However, SWAPE's analysis fails to establish grounds for further review under Section 15183(b)(4). First, SWAPE's analysis is admittedly intentional in its overstatement of potential health risks. As SWAPE acknowledges in its report, its assessment was intentionally “conservative” and that such “ screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach.” Second, SWAPE's analysis overlooks that the Project will implement Mitigation Measure AIR -3a, which requires use of Tier 4 off -road diesel equipment and preparation of a Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan. As the City stated in its consistency memorandum, “Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3a would ensure the proposed project would not result in a significant impact that is peculiar to the project. ” Third, SWAPE's analysis overlooks applicable regulatory controls that reduce DPM emissions, including California Air Resources Board regulations that ban high-polluting construction vehicles, which were identified in the Housing Element EIR. The Housing Element EIR expressly analyzed health risks from construction equipment emissions of TACs and PM2.5 from housing developments like this Project, and Mitigation Measure AIR-3a was specifically designed to address these impacts. The Labor Unions have not provided substantial new information showing that impacts would be more severe than analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, particularly given that the Project will implement the very mitigation measures the EIR determined would substantially mitigate such impacts.

Nor can the Labor Unions establish that any of the other grounds permitting additional review are present. They do not and cannot identify any DPM-related impacts that are “peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,”
30 because nothing about the Project’s use of
construction equipment distinguishes it in any way from any other housing project analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. The Labor Unions cannot identify any DPM -related impacts that “were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent ,”
31 because the Housing Element EIR did analyze such
impacts, and required implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -3a to address those impacts .32 And, the Labor Unions cannot identify any “potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative 29 Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15183(b)(4).
30 Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15183(b)(1).
31 Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15183(b)(2).
32 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at IV.C-22-23 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf).

I25
im
pacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action,”33 because the Housing Element EIR again analyzed those impacts.34 Finally, the August 19, 2025 Comment Letter states that its purported “evidence precludes the City from relying on the CEQA exemption [and that] in order to comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR that analyzes the Project’s potentially significant and peculiar [air quality] impacts.”
35 Even assuming that the Comment Letter had identified air quality impacts beyond those studied in the Housing Element EIR, its proposed solution – denial of the CEQA exemption, and preparation of an EIR – is contrary to law. Courts have expressly rejected the notion that the Section 15183 “exemption applies only if there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project or its site.”
36 Rather, the Section 15183 exemption applies automatically when a project is “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified[,]” and any further analysis must be limited to ascertaining whether peculiar project-specific impacts exist.
37 Because the Project is consistent with the density
set forth in the Housing Element and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, the Project qualifies for the Section 15183 exemption, and an EIR may not be lawfully required.

B. Noise Impacts.

With respect to noise impacts, the Labor Unions assert that construction activities could exceed applicable noise and vibration standards , and the Project’s nighttime ambient operational noise will exceed the City’s significance threshold.
38 The Housing Element EIR analyzes each of these
areas, concluding that any project-specific impacts relating to noise and vibrations will be less than significant in view of compliance with the City ’s Code of Ordinance s (“City Code”) noise restrictions and General Plan Policy 11.8.2.39
With respect to operational noise impacts, City staff explained that the Project “does not include any operational noise -generating uses outside of typical residential uses [such as] heating, 33 Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15183(b)(3).
34 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at IV.C-23-24 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf). 35 August 19, 2025 Comment Letter at 5-6.
36 Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 914 (“We disagree with such a narrow interpretation of Guidelines section 15183 in which the exemption is entirely inapplicable if there are any peculiar project-specific environmental impacts.”).
37 Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 914. 38 July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 12-15.
39 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at IV.L-12-15 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf).

I26
vent
ilation, and air conditioning units [,]” and that noise levels associated with potential HVAC units “would reasonably not be expected to result in a substantial increase in noise levels in the project vicinity.” 40 Staff also noted that the Project will be subject to the City’s Multi- family Residential Objective Design Standards, which require shielding HVAC units to decrease noise, as well as to General Plan Policy 11.8.2, “a uniformly applicable development policy identified by the Housing Element EIR as being sufficient to substantially mitigate impacts associated with the buildout of the Housing Element related to noise.”
41 Similarly, with respect to construction-related noise impacts, the Housing Element EIR states that any impacts from construction-related noise would be mitigated to less than significant, where a project adheres to City Code § 5-17.04 and § 5-17.05, which generally restrict construction hours to 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 5 pm on weekends. 42 In order to mitigate construction
noise to less than significant, the Housing Element EIR also states a project would have to implement a construction -related noise mitigation plan requiring the use of noise -reduction methods and limitations on haul truck deliveries to and from the Project site, consistent with General Plan Policy 11.8.2.
43 As City staff explained, Project approval is conditioned on compliance with Policy 11.8.2.44
In the August 19, 2025 Comment Letter, the Labor Unions state: “While the Housing Element EIR generally found that compliance with these standards could mitigate impacts, the City has not demonstrated that it is complying with these policies. Specifically, it has failed to prepare the noise attenuation study required by Policy 11.8.2(f), nor has it provided any site-specific analysis or data to justify its conclusion that the study is unnecessary.” 45 Policy 11.8.2 only requires a noise
attenuation study “[f]or developments in areas exceeding the noise levels identified in the General Plan noise objectives, or where the development of proposed uses could result in a significant increase in noise[.]”
46 But, as City staff have explained, “the project is not located in an area exceeding the General Plan noise standards.”
47 The objective noise level identified in the General Plan for multi- family 40 Response to Comment 1-10, Responses to Comments, page 33. 41 Response to Comment 1-10, Responses to Comments, page 33. 42 Id. at IV.L-7-8, 12.
43 Id. at IV.L-7-8, 12.
44 Response to Comment 1-11, Responses to Comments, page 34. Conditions of Approval #50. 45 August 19, 2025 Comment Letter, at 9.
46 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at IV.L-13 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf). 47 Response to Comment 1-8, Responses to Comments, page 33.

I27
re
sidential uses, like the Project here, is “60 dBA CNEL within interior open space.”48 However, the Labor Unions claim the Project has the “potential” for operational noise levels of 53 dBA, calculated based on a number of acknowledged assumptions. 49 Thus, the Labor Unions’ own “evidence” fails to rebut the City’s sound conclusion that the Project is not in an area exceeding the noise levels identified in the General Plan noise objectives. Further, City staff explained with specificity why the HVAC-related noise cited by the Labor Unions would not cause a substantial operational noise increase, in view of the Project’s location. 50 As such, the conditions requiring
preparation of a noise attenuation study under Policy 11.8.2(f) are not triggered.

Finally, with respect to vibration-related impacts, City staff explained that “the requirement for a screening level vibration analysis is based specifically on the use of impact pile drivers during construction. … Pile drivers are not typically used for standard residential developments[.]” 51 In view of this fact, the Labor Unions appear to have dropped their allegations that the Project is required to undertake a vibration analysis.

Because the Project will comply with all applicable standards and criteria regarding construction- related and operational noise, any noise and vibration-related impacts are coextensive with those analyzed in the Housing Element EIR, and none of the Section 15183(b) criteria for further analysis are implicated.

IV. The Project Is Separately Entitled to Proceed as a CEQA-Exempt Project Pursuant to Recently-Enacted Assembly Bill 130.

Separate and apart from the CEQA exemption provided by Guidelines Section 15183, the Project is separately entitled to proceed as a CEQA -exempt project pursuant to AB 130. AB 130 was signed into law on June 30, 2025, and its provisions are effective as of that date.

In relevant part, AB 130 provides that CEQA “does not apply to any aspect of a housing development project, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905.5 of the Government Code, including any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project, as may be required by this division, if the housing development project meets” AB 130’s qualifying criteria.
52 48 City of Antioch, “Antioch Housing, Environmental Hazards, and Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, Draft Environmental Impact Report” (Sept. 2022), at IV.L-6 (https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community- development/planning/housing-element/DHEEIR-DEIR_22_0902.pdf). 49 July 15, 2025 Comment Letter at 14; July 15, 2025 Comment Letter, Ex. A at 5-6. 50 Response to Comment 1-10, Responses to Comments, page 33. 51 Response to Comment 1-12, Responses to Comments, page 35. 52 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a).

I28
Th
e Project meets these criteria. The Project Site is 10.35 acres, and so meets AB 130’s acreage limitations.53 The Project Site is within the boundaries of the City of Antioch, which is an incorporated municipality.54 At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the Project Site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. 55 The Project is consistent with all applicable general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinances, as the Staff Report acknowledges. 56 The Project’s density of 20.05 du/acre is “at least one -half of” the density “appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households” in the City, which is 30 du/acre. 57 The Project Site is not among the categories of sites excluded from the CEQA exemption due to particular environmental sensitivities.58 The Project does not require the demolition of a historic structure. 59 And, no portion of the Project will be designated for hotel uses or similar uses.60 As such, the Project is separately CEQA -exempt under AB 130. Because the City has already confirmed that the Project is CEQA-exempt under Guidelines Section 15183, it is unnecessary to rely on this additional exemption. However, even if there were any issue with respect to the Project’s entitlement to the Section 15183 exemption, the Project would remain exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130.61
53 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(1).
54 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(2).
55 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(3); see Pub. Res. Code §§ 21080.66(f)(1) (““Adjoins” includes parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, or bicycle path.”), (f)(3) (“Urban use” means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.”). 56 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(4); see July 16, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, Agenda Item 6-1, at 3-4. 57 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(5); see Dept. of Housing & Comm. Dev., “Default Density Standard Option – 2020 Census Update” (Mar. 21, 2022), at 7 (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing- element-memos/docs/defaultdensity2020censusupdate.pdf). 58 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(6).
59 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(7).
60 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(a)(8).
61 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(b)(1)(A)(ii).

I29
V. Con
clusion
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that City Council reject the arguments set forth in the Comment Letter and approve the Project pursuant to the Section 15183 CEQA exemption.

Sincerely,
Daniel R. Golub
W
illiam E. Sterling
Scott L. Gesundheit

HOLLAND & KNIGHT
I30

EXHIBIT B
I31

Letter EMY
October 28th, 2025

Alaura R. McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080

SUBJECT: Wildflower 2 Section 15183 Consistency Memorandum Antioch, CA
Response to letter from Holland & Knight

Dear Ms. McGuire,

As requested, we have reviewed the letter dated September 23 rd, 2025, prepared by Holland and Knight regarding the Wildflower 2 project in Antioch, California. The letter includes a response to our letter dated August 18, 2025, regarding our belief that the noise impact analysis for the Wildflower 2 Townhomes Project in Antioch, CA is insufficient, and the Project has the potential to create significant impacts from construction and operational noise on the surrounding community that are peculiar to the Project. Holland and Knight misinterprets and makes false statements regarding our prior comments, which we seek to clarify below.

The letter states that the Project “does not include any operational noise-generating uses outside of typical residential uses [such as] heating ventilation, and air conditioning units[,]” (Page H-9). Our analysis did not assume any operational noise sources that are not ‘typical residential uses’ other than what could be reasonably expected as HVAC units for residential buildings.

The letter states that the project “ will be subject to the City’s Multi -family Residential Objective Design Standards, which require shielding HVAC units to decrease noise.” In our original letter dated July 12, 2025, 4 dB of reduction was assumed from the shielding of mechanical noise. The letter continues that General Plan Policy 11.8.2 limits noise at “residential uses, like the Project here, [to] “60 dBA CNEL within interior open space ” and our previous letter is cited where we claim that the Project has the “potential for operational noise levels of 53 dBA” (Page H-10).

Our calculation of 53 dBA was based on an hourly Leq level, not a CNEL. The hourly Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level) represents the average sound energy over a one-hour period, expressed in decibels (dBA). It reflects the steady sound level that would contain the same total energy as the actual varying noise during that hour. In contrast, the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour, time-weighted average that builds upon the Leq by adding penalties for noise occurring during more sensitiv e evening and nighttime periods. Specifically, CNEL adds 5 decibels to noise events between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 decibels to noise events between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for increased human sensitivity to noise at those times. These are not the same I32

WILSON IHRIG
Wildflower Townhomes
Comments on Staff Report

metrics to compare. If the 53 dBA was steady over 24 hours, the CNEL would exceed this 60 CNEL threshold.

Thus, since the General Plan Policy 11.8.2 states that for developments in areas exceeding the noise levels identified in the General Plan noise objectives, or where the development of proposed uses could result in a significant increase in noise, General Plan Policy 11.8.2(f) requires a detailed noise attenuation study to be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to determine appropriate mitigation and ways to incorporate such mitigation into project design and implementation. This was not done for this project.

Additionally, the letter states that any impact “from construction -related noise would be mitigated to less than significant, where a project adheres to City Code § 5-17.04 and § 5-17.05, which generally restricts construction hours to 7 am to 6 pm on weekdays and 9 am to 5 pm on weekends” (Page H - 9). Nighttime construction restrictions do not mitigate daytime noise levels , so the point is immaterial to the concerns raised within our original letter.

The letter also says that “the Housing Element EIR also states a project would have to implement a construction-related noise mitigation plan requiring the use of noise -reduction methods and limitations on haul truck deliveries to and from the Project site ” (Page H-9). Our original letter did not raise concerns about on-haul truck noise, so this is immaterial to our concerns.

Therefore, Holland and Knight has provided inaccurate and misleading statements regarding our previous comments related to the 15183 Consistency Memo’s noise impact analysis. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the public review process for this Project and the opportunity to clarify our previous findings.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG

Jack Meighan
Associate
meighan -wildflower response to staff report comments.docx I33

1644-113j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O RN E Y S A T L A W

6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0- 7 0 3 7 ___________

T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9- 5 0 6 2
c c a r o@ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m

printed on recycled paper

June 13, 2023

Via Email and Overnight Mail

Chairman Pedro Nava
Vice Chairman Sean Varner
Honorable Commissioners Dion Aroner, David Beier,
Anthony Cannella, Assemblymember Phillip Chen,
Bill Emmerson, Gil Garcetti, José Atilio Hernández,
Senator Dave Min, Assemblymember Liz Ortega,
Janna Sidley, Senator Scott Wilk
Little Hoover Commission
c/o Ethan Rarick, Executive Director
and Tristan Stein
25 L Street, Suite 805
Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]

Re: Effects of the California Environmental Quality Act

Dear Commissioners:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California regarding the Little Hoover Commission’s study on the effects of the California Environmental Quality Act1 (“CEQA”). The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California represents nearly 500,000 working men and women in the construction industry, including roughly 70,000 enrolled in its state-of-the-art apprenticeship programs around the state. Three-quarters of its apprentices are people of color, and one in five come from foster care, are emancipated youth, or come from the criminal justice system.

1 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal Code Regs. (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) §§ 15000 et seq.

I34
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
The purposes of the Little Hoover Commission study include: (1) to examine CEQA’s role in protecting the environment and providing public disclosure, (2) to evaluate and survey the debate surrounding CEQA’s impact on housing and land use, (3) to explore the present state of the CEQA process and consider whether changes to CEQA or the CEQA process may be merited, and (4) to consider how to best ensure that any changes to CEQA “preserve the environmental protections and public accountability that the law affords.”2 To fulfill these purposes, the Commission must conduct a broad and unbiased survey of the beneficial effects CEQA has had on protecting human health and the environment over the last 50 years – effects which have allowed California to become one of the strongest economies in the world, while at the same time meeting robust environmental and public health protection mandates.

In the last three months, the Committee has heard from 14 invited speakers.

The majority of those speakers have represented private developers, their agents, and their attorneys, whose collective opinion is that CEQA is a burden on the commercial interests of these private developers and their companies. They believe that members of the public who enforce CEQA to protect their health, their workplaces, and their communities from the adverse environmental and public health impacts of development are extortionists, “lawyer trolls demanding cash,” “exclusionist redliners,” “NIMBY Preservationists,” and “unions seeking job guarantees.”3 These biased opinions do nothing to examine the effects CEQA has had on protecting public health and the environment over the last 50 years.

For example, none of the CEQA critics have attempted to quantify the:

• thousands of tons of air pollution that have been kept out of people’s lungs;
• thousands of pounds of contaminated soil that has been remediated from construction sites;
• thousands of hours of traffic congestion that have been prevented; • thousands of acres of natural lands that have been preserved; • thousands of acre-feet of water that have been conserved; • thousands of megawatt hours of electricity usage that have been avoided;

2 See Little Hoover Commission, CEQA Study Overview, available at https://lhc.ca.gov/report/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa (last visited 5/19/23). 3 Presentation of J. Hernandez, Little Hoover Commission Hearing March 16, 2023, slide 4 [criticizing “trolls” and “exclusionist redliners”], available at https://lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/CurrentStudies/CEQA/CEQAWrittenTestimony/HernandezMa rch2023_Presentation.pdf. See also Testimony of Christopher Elmendorf, March 16, 2023, pp. 3-4 (“The Trades (unions), use CEQA as leverage to secure project-labor agreements.”).

I35
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
and the many other environmental and public health benefits that have occurred – and continue to occur each year – as a direct result of public participation in the CEQA process. Instead, they attack members of the public who achieve those benefits through participating in the CEQA process. These are biased arguments by private interest groups who serve to benefit financially from less rigorous environmental enforcement.

CEQA is not self-executing. It depends on public participation and was designed to foster that participation. Of course, developers do not like it when public participation reveals environmental impacts, and avoiding or mitigating those impacts costs them money. But this is not a bug in the system, it is a virtue.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California has 157 affiliated unions from 14 different construction craft unions, many of which have contributed to CEQA’s benefits. Union members live and work in the communities where projects are built. Many union members and union apprentices in California come from disadvantaged communities and are part of a diverse workforce with “considerable ethnic and racial diversity.”4 Three-quarters of the State Building and Construction Trades Council’s roughly 70,000 members enrolled in its state-of- the-art apprenticeship programs around the state are people of color, and one in five come from foster care, are emancipated youth, or come from the criminal justice system.

For decades, unions have relied on the CEQA process to enforce environmental and public health protections – including worker health protections – for new development projects as a means of ensuring a safe working and living environment for the public, including themselves and their families. CEQA is especially important to union members who construct projects because they are the first in line to be exposed to health and safety impacts that exist onsite – things like soil contamination, air pollution from construction equipment, and excess noise.

4 See Luke, et al. UC Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education, Diversity in California’s Clean Energy Workforce: Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Workers in Renewable Energy Construction (August 2017), available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2017/Diversity-in- Californias-Clean-Energy-Workforce.pdf (last visited 5/22/23) (documenting “considerable ethnic and racial diversity” in enrollments in apprenticeship programs of the 16 union locals of electricians, ironworkers, and operators that have built most of the renewable energy power plants in California, including construction workers from communities that are designated as disadvantaged by Cal EPA .

For union apprentices, in 2017, Latinos were 53 percent of ironworkers, 35 percent of electrical workers, and 23 percent of operators, compared with their 34 percent share of the statewide labor force. African Americans comprised 4 percent of electricians, 6 percent of ironworkers, and 9 percent of operators, compared with 6 percent in the statewide labor force.); see Cypress Mandela equal opportunity union apprenticeship program, https://www.cypressmandela.org/.

I36
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
For many, CEQA has become the only place where communities of color, which includes workers represented by labor unions, have a voice in the process of developing projects in their communities.

California unions participate as interested members of the public in the CEQA process. Their participation has led to decades of stronger air quality and toxic material controls at construction sites and housing developments, lowered emissions at industrial sites, increased electrification and renewable gas and fuels, reductions in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, reduced construction noise and traffic in residential areas, improved water quality, water conservation, and protections for natural landscapes and sensitive biological resources. Union participation in the CEQA process has resulted in improved analysis and mitigation in agencies’ CEQA documents, and, in some cases, successful litigation requiring agencies to comply with CEQA where the issues unions raised were not resolved during the administrative process. In short, union participation in the CEQA process leads to cleaner, safer, and more sustainable development in the State.

This is exactly what CEQA is designed to accomplish – protecting people and the environment through active public engagement in the environmental process.

Public agencies have complimented and thanked unions for their valuable contribution to the environmental review process. For example, when approving the Elk Hills project, the California Energy Commission Presiding Commissioner Michal Moore praised and thanked union coalition California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) for its participation in the proceeding: “We never would’ve gotten to some of the places that we did, and the resolution that we did, if it hadn’t been for the – the dogged efforts of [CURE]…we came to a good place, and probably couldn’t have gotten to that good place without some of the tension and – and rigor that was applied. So, thank you very much.”5 During the evidentiary hearings, a Commissioner “thank[ed] CURE for the technical help that Phyllis Fox [CURE expert] offered us, and certainly offered me an education that I wasn’t going to get any other place.”6

Some unions work on constructing and operating projects after they participate in the environmental permitting process. Developers and critics allege this means that unions are using CEQA to induce developers to enter into project

5 Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, CEC Business Meeting Transcript, pp. 24-25 (Dec. 6, 2000).)
6 Elk Hills Power Project, Docket No. 99-AFC-1, Transcript of Evidentiary Hearing, p. 61 (Oct. 26, 2000).

I37
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
labor agreements, then abandon the environmental issues.7 These allegations are not only false, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of union participation. When the unions work on projects they have challenged, they do not walk away from the environmental and public health issues they raise.

They enforce them through binding mitigation and environmental settlement agreements. This is consistent with CEQA’s environmental purpose, and with the historic values of organized labor to solve problems, engage in civic discourse and activism, advocate for safe working conditions, and effect changes that improve their members’ lives and communities.8

The environmental and public health improvements achieved by union participation in the CEQA process benefit all Californians. The Commission should not propose any changes to CEQA that restrict the rights of unions or any other members of the public from enforcing CEQA.

I. CEQA PROTECTS WORKERS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES

CEQA is a critical tool for protecting California’s workers and communities and for ensuring that development proceeds safely and sustainably.

First, CEQA is the State’s primary tool for informing the public about the impacts of proposed development in their workplaces, neighborhoods, and communities. The workers and residents of the communities where projects are built are the ones who must live with the impacts of development for years to come.

CEQA provides the public the right to participate in land use decisions that result in those environmental and public health impacts.9 The CEQA process is

7 See e.g. Little Hoover Commission Testimony of Dan C. Dunmoyer, California Building Industry Association (March 16, 2023), p. 3 (alleging that “once a builder elects to agree to use labor, the CEQA lawsuit disappears, and often no additional environmental mitigation or improvement is achieved”); Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), p. 28 (citing press by developer advocates which claims that labor unions use the threat of CEQA litigation to “induce developers to enter into project labor agreements.”).
8 See U.S. Department of Labor, Unions 101, available at https://www.dol.gov/general/workcenter/unions-101 (last visited 5/21/23); Economic Policy Institute, How Today’s Unions Help Working People: Giving Workers The Power To Improve Their Jobs And Unrig The Economy, August 24, 2017, available at https://www.epi.org/publication/how-todays- unions-help-working-people-giving-workers-the-power-to-improve-their-jobs-and-unrig-the-economy/ (last visited 5/21/23).
9 The CEQA Guidelines clarify that “public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.” 14 CCR § 15201. Public review of environmental documents serves several purposes: (a) sharing expertise; (b) disclosing agency analyses; (c) checking for accuracy; (d) detecting omissions; (e) discovering public concerns; and (f) soliciting counter proposals. 14 CCR § 15200 I38
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
particularly important to disadvantaged communities and communities of color who rely on CEQA to address community-level impacts.10 The courts have explained that “the ‘privileged position’ that members of the public hold in the CEQA process . . . is based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making. . . .”11 This is consistent with the general principle that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy.12

Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage by requiring feasible alternatives and mitigation measures.13 If a project has significant effects on public health or the environment, the agency may not approve the project unless it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are acceptable due to overriding concerns, including “considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers.”14

CEQA provides union members the ability to participate in approval of development projects to ensure that environmental and public health impacts are mitigated before projects are approved. CEQA also allows unions to participate in agency decisions for projects which have significant and unavoidable impacts to ensure that the approving agencies consider opportunities to provide good jobs to their communities, including the employment of skilled union workers.15 In addition to supporting local workers, recent studies find that the use of a skilled workforce can assist in emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.16

10 See e.g., Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (5/11/23), pp. 5 (proposals to strengthen CEQA include requiring projects to consider and adopt additional mitigation to address impacts on environmental justice communities), 6 (addressing community-level impacts is a key consideration for environmental justice advocates), 32 (discussing substantial mitigation achieved through the World Logistics Center CEQA litigation in City of Moreno Valley). 11 Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agric. Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 930, 936. 12 Thomas Jefferson.
13 14 CCR§ 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at 564.
14 PRC § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B).
15 PRC § 21081(a)(3).
16 See C. Zabin, UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, Putting California On The High Road: A Jobs And Climate Action Plan For 2030 (June 2020), pp. 4-5, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High- Road.pdf (last visited 5/22/23) (documenting climate benefits of a skilled workforce, such as use of skilled, trained workers in energy efficiency system work increasing GHG reductions).

I39
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
A. Unions Have a Direct Interest in Enforcing CEQA

CEQA informs workers about the impacts of development. CEQA is also the only legal framework that looks at the cumulative impact of workplace chemicals and related pollution on workers and neighboring communities.17 Building trades unions have a genuine interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and protect the health, safety, standard of life and economic interests of their members.18 Union members live, work, recreate and raise their families throughout California. Accordingly, these members and their families are directly and adversely affected by projects’ impacts on public health, public services, and the environment.

Many union members including union apprentices in California come from disadvantaged communities.19 Union apprenticeship programs are a primary pathway for providing disadvantaged workers good-paying construction-career opportunities. The California Department of Apprenticeship Standards requires every apprenticeship program to include an equal opportunity program with an affirmative action plan to recruit women and minority applicants.20 CEQA is often the only realistic opportunity for the members of these programs to weigh in on planning or project decisions on behalf of themselves and their communities. As the Commission has noted, CEQA “provides [disadvantaged] communities with leverage to influence and shape projects that may have significant impacts on them.”21

17 PRC § 21083(b); 14 CCR §§ 15064(h)(1), 15065(a)(3).
18 See e.g. Resolution To The Executive Council Of The California Labor Federation, CEQA:

Protecting the Environment and Quality Jobs for our Communities, available at https://calaborfed.org/ceqa_resolution_protecting_the_environment_and_quality_jobs_for_our_comm uni/ (last visited 5/21/23).
19 See Luke, et al. UC Berkeley, Center for Labor Research and Education, Diversity in California’s Clean Energy Workforce: Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Workers in Renewable Energy Construction (August 2017), available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2017/Diversity-in- Californias-Clean-Energy-Workforce.pdf (last visited 5/22/23) (documenting “considerable ethnic and racial diversity” in enrollments in apprenticeship programs of the 16 union l ocals of electricians, ironworkers, and operators that have built most of the renewable energy power plants in California, including 43% of entry-level power plant construction workers in Kern County coming from communities that are designated as disadvantaged by Cal EPA). 20 8 CCR § 215; see also Labor Code § 1777.5 (f).
21 Little Hoover Commission 3/16/23 Staff Report, pp. 31-32.

I40
June 13, 2023

1644-113j

1. Construction Workers

CEQA requires comprehensive environmental analysis and mitigation of construction impacts.22 In particular, CEQA requires the lead agency to thoroughly examine potential hazards associated with project construction, such as the presence of toxic substances, dangerous particulates, or harmful emissions.23 Labor union members construct industrial, commercial, residential, and other development in California. Construction workers build the projects that are subject to CEQA. Construction workers are therefore directly affected by these impacts and are the first in line to be exposed to on-site hazards.

CEQA provides a mechanism for safeguarding construction workers on job sites from exposure to hazardous materials, particulates, and other potential health risks. CEQA is therefore a critical law for construction workers to ensure that environmental exposures and public health impacts from projects that they and other workers construct are mitigated to the greatest extent feasible before and during the construction process. Mitigating construction impacts is particularly important for construction workers because they are a demographic with significantly elevated risks for all lung cancers than other occupations and many of these exposures occur on the job site.24

Construction workers deserve to work in environments that prioritize their safety. CEQA plays an indispensable role in that process by giving construction workers the opportunity to present evidence and express concerns about unmitigated environmental effects of proposed projects before they are approved.

CEQA ensures that the welfare of construction workers remains at the forefront of project planning and execution.

In addition to protecting their health and safety, through CEQA, members of construction unions depend on development being sustainable. They are always working themselves out of a job. Their livelihood depends on a steady flow of new construction work. Thus, union construction workers depend on sustainable development. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for industry to expand locally, regionally, or statewide, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and

22 See CEQA Appendix G, e.g., Section III (Air Quality), Section IX (Hazards and Hazardous Materials); Section XIII (Noise).
23 Id.
24 See American Journal of Independent Medicine, Lung cancer risk among construction workers in California, 1988-2007 (2012 May;55(5):412-22.doi: 10.1002/ajim.22010. Epub 2012 Jan 11), available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22237930/ (last visited 5/21/23).

I41
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
people to live in those areas. Degradation of the environment and public health can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduce future employment opportunities. CEQA provides the process for construction workers to promote sustainable development.

2. Operational Workers

CEQA requires comprehensive environmental analysis and mitigation of operational impacts.25 Labor union members operate and maintain industrial facilities throughout the State, including refineries, power plants, fuel transport facilities, warehouses, manufacturing plants and other industrial sites which commonly involve elevated air pollution, hazards, and occupational health risks to workers.26

As with construction workers, CEQA provides an important mechanism to ensure that the environmental and public health impacts on operational workers at industrial facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent feasible before the facilities are approved and built. Service industry unions and medical workers also rely on CEQA to ensure that operational health exposures and other adverse impacts of development projects result in the least harm possible to their health and their communities.

II. UNION PARTICIPATION IN THE CEQA PROCESS HAS

IMPROVED PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTIONS FOR HUNDREDS OF DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS AND COUNTING

Unions and their members have long understood that community and worker safety and environmental protection are essential to long-term sustainable development and a healthy construction economy. For these reasons, unions and their members participate in local environmental permitting and regulatory proceedings to advocate for responsible and sustainable development that will protect their members and the communities in which they live. This advocacy has

25 See CEQA Appendix G, e.g., Section III (Air Quality), Section IX (Hazards and Hazardous Materials); Section XIII (Noise).
26 See e.g. Center for Public Integrity, Benzene and worker cancers: An American tragedy (increased cancers in occupations linked to benzene exposure, including refinery workers, steel workers, and others), available at https://publicintegrity.org/environment/benzene-and-worker-cancers-an- american-tragedy/ (last visited 5/21/23).

I42
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
produced stronger environmental protections, lessened the adverse impacts of individual projects, resulted in greater community benefits, and led to more informed decision-making – a fundamental goal of citizen participation in the CEQA process.

CEQA does not stop projects. It improves them. Below are a few examples of the environmental and public health improvements unions have achieved through their participation in the CEQA process.

A. Judicial Recognition and Benefits of Union Participation in the CEQA Process

The courts have recognized unions’ right to participate in the CEQA process and held that the environmental claims raised by unions were correct.27

1. Supreme Court Decisions

• Communities for a Better Environment, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310 – Labor organizations and an environmental group brought a CEQA action against the air district challenging its issuance of permits enabling an oil refinery to produce a new kind of diesel fuel. The Court agreed with the petitioners that increased use of existing equipment was to be evaluated as part of the project, not the baseline setting. The Court also agreed that the project was not merely a modification of a previously analyzed project or the continued operation of an existing facility. The Court agreed that substantial evidence showed the potential for significant impacts, requiring preparation of an EIR.

• Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459 – Steelworker union and environmental group challenged forest logging plans in Humboldt County

27 See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Ctrl. v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198 (“unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.”); Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v.

Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265 (successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s change from clean to dirty fuel). In Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153, a coalition of fishermen brought a CEQA challenge to stop sonic testing of the ocean floor, contending the testing harmed fish populations. The court stated, “[w]hile those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate e nvironmental concern.” Id. at 170-71.

I43
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
under CEQA and other environmental laws. The Supreme Court upheld the challenge, finding that the EIR for the sustainable yield plan failed to comply with CEQA because it lacked an adequate analysis of impacts on watersheds.

2. Court of Appeal Decisions

• Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 - Citizen group which included a grocery workers union challenged the City of Bakersfield approval of two Walmart “supercenters” on CEQA grounds. The court held that the EIRs for the projects were deficient in failing to correlate the projects’ adverse air quality impacts to resultant adverse health effects, and failing to analyze the projects’ cumulative and urban decay impacts. In upholding the citizen groups’ appeal, the court expressly held that “unions have standing to litigate environmental claims.”28

• Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1357 – CEQA action brought by homeowners whose property would be adversely affected by an expansion of Oakland Airport. The homeowners relied heavily on evidence submitted by labor unions challenging the same airport expansion. The court held that an EIR must accurately describe the expansion, use the most accurate scientific methodology to calculate toxic impacts and include a noise analysis and health risk assessment of toxic impacts. Most of the Court’s conclusions were based on the testimony of experts retained by labor unions.

• California Unions for Reliable Energy, et al. v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1225 – A coalition of labor and environmental organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the air district’s conclusion that no CEQA review was required prior to the District’s adoption of a rule authorizing road paving as a method to offset particulate air pollution. The groups argued that the rule did not assure maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.

The Court held that the District’s adoption was not exempt from CEQA and that the environmental effects of the rule were not too speculative for review.

28 Id. at 1198.

I44
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
• Covington et al. v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867 – A CEQA lawsuit by individuals and a union challenging the adequacy of an EIR for a proposed geothermal power plant. Relying on evidence submitted by California Unions for Reliable Energy regarding fugitive air pollution, the court held that the EIR contained inadequate information and analysis to support the EIR’s rejection of the unions’ proposed mitigation to reduce fugitive emissions.

• Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 116s Cal.App.3d 265 – successful union suit under CEQA to challenge plant’s change from clean to dirty fuel.

• Meridian Ocean v. State Lands Comm’n (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 153 – CEQA action brought by companies challenging State Lands Commission decision to require an EIR for sonic testing of ocean floor that may harm fish populations. The court upheld the fishing coalition’s participation in the CEQA process, irrespective of their commercial interests in the affected fishing industry. As the court explained, fishermen “claim the size and quality of their catches have been impaired by petitioners’ activities. While those whose livelihood depends upon being able to catch fish may have pecuniary motivations to bring the matter to public attention, the fact [that] marine and fish life is being threatened is surely a legitimate environmental concern.”29

• Plastic Pipe and Fittings Assoc. v. Calif. Building Standards Comm’n (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1390 - A coalition of labor and environmental organizations (California Pipe Trades Council, the Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Environmental Health, and others) advocated for the preparation of an EIR to study the public and worker health and environmental hazards of polyethylene (“PEX”) plastic pipe. The groups were concerned that PEX allows toxic chemicals, including MTBE, benzene, and pesticides, to leach into drinking water. The EIR that was ultimately prepared by the California Building Standards Commission identified mitigation measures to protect public/worker health and the environment. The plastic pipe and fittings association sued, but the Court upheld the Commission’s decision to prepare the EIR.

29 Id. at 171.

I45
June 13, 2023

1644-113j

3. Trial Court Decisions

• Citizens for Responsible Solar, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1718458 [Partially consolidated with Case No. RIC1718565] – Citizen group which included labor organizations and community members brought a CEQA action challenging the EIR for an industrial solar photovoltaic plant to be located on former agricultural lands. The Court granted the petition, holding that the EIR failed to adequately analyze soil contamination impacts and mitigation for impacts to burrowing owl.

• Safe Fuel and Energy Resources California, et al. v. County of Contra Costa (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, December 1, 2016) Case No.

MSN15-0381 [Consolidated for purposes of trial with Case No. MSN15- 0345 and Case No. MSN15-0301] – Coalition of labor organizations and other citizen groups brought CEQA actions challenging the County’s air quality analysis in its EIR for a refinery’s propane recovery project. The court agreed with the petitioners that (1) the county’s conclusion regarding the Project’s air quality impacts from railcar emissions was not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the county failed to consistently describe rail transportation of propane and butane; and (3) the county’s use of the prior shutdown of a process heater in the hydrogen plant as mitigation for the project’s NOx emissions was not supported by substantial evidence.

B. Environmental Improvements Resulting from Union Participation

Unions have achieved substantial environmental and public health improvements participating in environmental proceedings in front of local, regional, and State agencies, particularly when union challengers support affected community coalitions. Some examples of projects in which union participation has resulted in direct environmental improvements and mitigation for project impacts are included in Attachment A.

Unions have participated in the public review of industrial, commercial, residential, and mixed-use projects since at least the early 1980s. That participation has resulted in binding environmental settlement agreements with project applicants, through the incorporation of additional mitigation measures or conditions of approval by lead agencies at the unions’ behest, and analytical improvements in hundreds of environmental review documents before projects were approved. The majority of these achievements are accomplished without litigation.

I46
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
California unions have long participated in proceedings at the California Building Standards Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure that new building materials and methods of construction are safe and effective and contribute to the state’s energy efficiency goals. This participation has resulted in plumbing pipe manufacturers changing pipe formulations to remove chloroform and eliminate chloroform leaching into drinking water. It has resulted in the adoption of measures to protect workers from the high-levels of exposure to toxic solvents that had been occurring at the time of installation. Of note, this union participation led to regulation of pipe cements to reduce VOC emissions in order to meet air quality goals. It has also resulted in new worker training and installation standards to ensure that consumers and utility ratepayers receive the energy savings they are paying for.

California unions have also participated in the permitting of new energy generation facilities by local agencies (including renewable and traditional energy facilities) and by the California Energy Commission over many decades, seeking stronger air quality, water conservation and toxic material controls on new energy generation facilities. For example, union participation in environmental review of thermal solar power plants led to developers dropping plans to use fresh groundwater in favor of dry cooling or recycled water.30 Several mitigation measures advocated by the unions have since been adopted by the Commission, are now applied to all new projects, and have made many California energy facilities the cleanest and safest in the nation.

Union participation in solar photovoltaic permitting has led to mitigation of construction and operational impacts to air quality, biological resources, habitat, and public health. 31 California unions were also the first to identify the significance of exhaust emissions from construction equipment and to advocate that such equipment be required to use oxidizing soot filters to reduce emissions. The

30 See Beacon Power Plant: https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/beacon-solar-energy-project (last visited 5/21/23), https://www.cnet.com/news/california-approves-giant-thermal-solar-plant/ (last visited 5/21/23); Genesis Power Plant
http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/news/contents/2010/091210.shtml 31 While solar photovoltaic power plants can drastically cut California’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, they require development on hundreds to thousands of acres and have a variety of impacts on California’s resources. Unions’ participation in the public review process has resulted in developers mitigating environmental impacts to biological resources, state jurisdictional waters, soil and water quality, air quality and public health. Joint Statement of Palo Verde Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (July, 2010); Joint Statement of Palen Solar 1, LLC and California Unions for Reliable Energy (October, 2010). A coalition of labor and community members achieved similar results regarding the Panoche Valley Solar project. (Joint Statement of Panoche Valley Solar, LLC and San Benito Residents for Responsible Development (June 18, 2015).) I47
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
environmental settlement between CE Obsidian Energy, LLC, and CURE in 2003 included a requirement that all large construction diesel engines and drill rigs were required to be equipped with soot filters.32 California Energy Commission staff now routinely recommends that these filters be used to reduce construction emissions.

With regard to toxics, construction unions have historically advocated for investigation, disclosure and mitigation of contaminated soils, among other hazards and impacts, from construction of development projects. For example, in 2006, building trades unions challenged the City of Richmond’s approval of a condominium project without adequate investigation of contaminated soils. The unions worked tirelessly to reconcile discrepancies in agency reports. Ultimately, the Department of Toxic Substances Control agreed to test the soil, even though the agency had already closed its investigation of the development site. DTSC then discovered antimony, a toxic metal that causes severe public health risks, in the soil at levels that exceeded the threshold for hazardous waste in California. As a result, the developer agreed with the labor unions to implement additional mitigation to address the contamination, public health and air quality issues raised by the labor unions.33 California unions were also the first to identify the danger of acrolein emissions (even before the State officially recognized the level of risk), and advocated that an oxidation catalyst be required to reduce this risk. 34

California unions have left their mark on water quality and water use. In San Diego, the hotel workers union obtained changes in the La Salle Hotel project that enabled public access to San Diego Bay and minimized impacts on water quality.35 Concerned with the use of Delta water for cooling for the High Desert Power Project, CURE cited State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 75-58 regarding the use of fresh water for power plant cooling. In the Sutter power plant case, CURE identified the significant impacts that would result if the project were cooled using groundwater.36 CURE consistently advocated that the projects use dry air cooling, but the applicants claimed that this would be prohibitively expensive.

32 See Joint Statement of Obsidian Energy, LLC and the California Unions for Reliable Energy, July 2003.
33 Contra Costa Times, Geluardi, John, Council OKs report on site for condos, RICHMOND: Group opts for more information on environmental impacts (May 4, 2006); Joint Statement of Toll Brothers, Inc., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 302, Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 159, Sheet Metal Workers, Local 104, Donald H. Brown and Javier Campos (May 2, 2006) . 34 AFC (98-AFC-04).
35 Joint Statement of La Salle Hotel Properties and UNITE HERE Local 30 (November, 2008). 36 See California Energy Com., Application for Certification for the Sutter Power Plant Project, Apr. 1999, p. 3.

I48
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
After CURE showed that the additional cost would be relatively modest, Calpine agreed to use 100% air cooling for the project at the Sutter plant.

Unions’ environmental achievements in CEQA proceedings are also explained in a 2005 report published by the Planning and Conservation League entitled Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize: Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act.37 Labor unions’ long record of environmental achievement is well documented, and must be considered by this Commission.

III. STANDING TO ENFORCE CEQA SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO
“SOME PEOPLE”

Members of the public have standing to bring a CEQA lawsuit if they will be adversely affected by the environmental impacts of a project (beneficial interest), and if they raise their objections to the agency before the project is approved (exhaustion of administrative remedies).38 California also has a broader public interest exception to beneficial interest standing which provides that petitioners – including CEQA petitioners – have standing if the question being enforced is one of public right or enforcement of a public duty.39

37 Everyday Heroes Protect the Air We Breathe, the Water We Drink, and the Natural Areas We Prize:, Thirty-Five Years of the California Environmental Quality Act, Planning and Conservation League, Project Manager and Acting Executive Director: Karen Douglas (2005), available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwib5v6s_sznAhXOvJ4KHab8BtUQFjAAegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcl.org%2Fmedi a%2Fprior-c%2FCEQA-Everyday-Heroes-full_report.pdf&usg=AOvVaw04CF- ustMmZ_LMzfQvwQcD (last visited 5/21/23).
38 PRC § 21177(a),(b) (“any person” may bring a CEQA action following timely objection); Code Civ.Proc.(“CCP”) § 1094.5(a); Gov.Code § 65009 (b)(1); Bozung v I.AFCO (1975) 13 C3d 263, 272 (CEQA petitioners have beneficial interest standing under CCP § 1086); Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 832-833. 39 Environmental Protection Info. Ctr. v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (“EPIC v. Dep’t of Forestry”) (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 479 (labor union with record of concern on sustainability issues had standing to challenge timber harvest and habitat conservation plans; court declined to find an exception to public interest standing that would require unions to make a special showing to demonstrate standing); Save the Plastic Bag Coal. v. City of Manhattan Beach (“Plastic Bag”) (2011) 52 Cal.4th 155, 167; Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 899, 914-916 (holding petitioner organization had public interest standing to challenge EIR and project approvals even if neither organization nor any of its members had direct and substantial beneficial interest in issuance of writ).

National Paint & Coatings Assn. v. State of California (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 753, 761 ("California authority supports the conclusion that a suit by a citizen in the undifferentiated public interest is 'justiciable,' or appropriate for decision in a California court").

I49
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
Some CEQA critics (primarily developers and their agents and advocates) argue that the Commission should recommend amendments to CEQA to limit standing based on challengers’ motives.40 For example, Ms. Thomas (developers’ attorney) states that three groups of people should not be allowed to participate in the CEQA process, including (1) anti-competitive businesses; (2) groups pursuing social and economic agendas; and (3) “NIMBY” neighbors seeking to delay or derail projects.41 The Commission’s March 16, 2023 staff report also discusses developers’ arguments that there should be more restrictive standing requirements for bringing CEQA lawsuits to prevent “weaponization” of CEQA.42

The argument that standing should be subjectively limited to some people, but not others, is highly discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental principles of public interest law. It is also directly contrary to CEQA. Under CEQA, “people” are an integral part of the environment.43 CEQA’s mandates include “the maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state,”44 and to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state.”45 An agency is required to find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.”46 CEQA therefore applies to all people – not some people – and all of those people have a right to enforce its protections.

The proposal by CEQA critics that CEQA enforcement should be limited only to some people with specific motives is based on a discriminatory belief that only certain people deserve access to the environmental and public health protections that CEQA affords. Such proposals are inconsistent with CEQA’s democratic purpose and its mandates to protect the environment and public health for all Californians. In practice, these proposals would exclude many people from

40 See e.g., Oral Testimony of Tina Thomas to Little Hoover Commission, April 13, 2023. 41 Id.; see L. Rothman, CEQA Turns Forty: The More Things Change, The More They Remain The Same, pp. 5-6, available at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahU KEwi9vsbHrYj_AhWblIkEHetVCC0QFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flaw.ucdavis.edu%2Fsit es%2Fg%2Ffiles%2Fdgvnsk10866%2Ffiles%2Fmedia%2Fdocuments%2FRothman-article- Hernandez.pdf&usg=AOvVaw39elgx28ce3jq4fZogSZCD (last visited 5/21/23). 42 Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), p. 29. 43 PRC § 21083(b)(3).
44 PRC § 21000(a).
45 PRC § 21000(d).
46 PRC § 21083(b)(3); see also CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2 (noting that project may cause significant effect by bringing people to hazards).

I50
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
disadvantaged communities and communities of color from participating in the CEQA process. The Commission should not recommend changes to CEQA that would contradict its purpose and effectuate a discriminatory intent.

A. Standing Requirements from Other States Are Inconsistent with California’s Public Interest Standing Doctrine

The Commission’s March 16, 2023 Staff Report suggests that the Commission should look at the standing requirements of other “little NEPA” environmental statutes to inform the Commission’s discussion of potential changes to CEQA’s standing requirements and additional housing exemptions.47 The report suggests focusing on New York’s environmental quality law, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”),48 which staff explains “has higher standing requirements than CEQA.”49 This recommendation is in response to developers’ arguments that more restrictive standing requirements for bringing CEQA lawsuits should be implemented to prevent some people from being able to enforce the environmental and public health protections that CEQA affords, namely neighborhood citizens’ groups (which developers have discriminately labeled NIMBY’s), unions, and business competitors, from enforcing CEQA.50

The Commission should reject developers’ recommendations to “shop around” for out-of-state legal standards to weaken CEQA. As discussed above, these arguments are contrary to California’s well-established public interest standing doctrine, which does not consider the challenger’s motives and authorizes any member of the public to bring a CEQA action “where the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of a public duty.” 51 In such cases, it is sufficient that the challenger is “interested as a citizen in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced,” regardless of any potential social or economic motives.52 Developers’ recommendations are simply a transparent attempt to distract courts – by focusing on the interests of the petitioner, rather than on the substantive merits of a case.

47 Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), pp. 12-13. 48 New York Environmental Conservation Law (“NYECL”), Article 8, §§ 8-0101 et seq; Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”), Part 617. 49 Id. at p. 12.
50 Id.
51 Plastic Bag, 52 Cal.4th at 167.
52 Plastic Bag, 52 Cal.4th at 167; Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth, 208 Cal. App. 4th at 914- 916.

I51
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
Staff’s recommendation to consider New York’s SEQRA standing requirements is also misplaced. SEQRA’s standing doctrine is modeled after more limited federal Article III standing, which California rejected when it adopted its public interest standing doctrine.53

Federal Article III standing requires three elements: (1) concrete and particularized and actual or imminent injury-in-fact; that is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.54 Associational standing under Article III is available if: (1) at least one of the association members has standing in their own right; (2) the interest it seeks to protect is germane to its purpose; and (3) neither the claim nor the requested relief d requires individual members to participate in the lawsuit.55 Federal courts will not generally adjudicate claims that fall outside the “zone of interests” protected or regulated by the statute.56

New York’s SEQRA standing requirements are almost identical. To establish standing under SEQRA, a petitioner must demonstrate that the challenged action causes injury that is (1) within the “zone of interests” sought to be protected by the statute, and is (2) different from any generalized harm caused by the action to the public at large.57 To fall within SEQRA’s “zone of interests,” the alleged injury must be “environmental and not solely economic in nature.”58

As legal scholars have explained, California’s public interest standing doctrine is a “significant departure from federal standing limitations” under Article III.59 The California Supreme Court has explained that “[t]here are sound

53 See Selmi, California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice, § 11.04(b) (Relaxed Citizen and Taxpayer Standing to Enforce Public Duties).]
54 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)) In re: Idaho Conservation League, 811 F.3d 502, 508 (D.C.Cir.2016).
55 Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 724 F.3d 243, 247 (D.C.Cir.2013). 56 Valley Forge College v. Americans United (1982) 454 U.S. 464, 474-475; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 562-564 (citizen suit provision of Endangered Species Act, does not confer standing to raise generalized grievance; to have standing, plaintiffs must have suffered distinct, concrete harm) . 57 Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 308–09, (2009), quoting Soc’y of Plastics Indus., Inc. v. Cty. of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 773–76, (1991). 58 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428, 433 (1990). An organization has standing to sue when “one or more of its members would have standing to sue,” the interests asserted by the organization “are germane to its purposes,” and “neither the asserted claim nor the appropriate relief requires the participation of the [organization’s] individual members.” Soc’y of Plastics, 77 N.Y.2d at 775.
59 Selmi, California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice, § 11.04(b) (Relaxed Citizen and Taxpayer Standing to Enforce Public Duties); National Paint & Coatings Assn. v. State of California (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 753, 761 ("California authority supports the conclusion that a suit by a I52
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
reasons to be cautious in borrowing federal standing concepts, born of perceived constitutional necessity, and extending them to state court actions where no similar concerns apply,”60 and has clarified that “[w]e have not adopted this federal standing doctrine for use in California courts” due to its inconsistent application.61 The Court has explained that the purpose of California’s “public interest” standing doctrine is to “promote[s] the policy of guaranteeing citizens the opportunity to ensure that no governmental body impairs or defeats the purpose of legislation establishing a public right.”62 A limited standing requirement for CEQA that mirrors federal standing requirements would be inconsistent with guaranteeing Californians the opportunity to preserve public rights.

Finally, the Commission Staff Report cites various other reasons that relying on other “little NEPA” statutes to weaken standing would be unsupported or premature, including:

• Other states’ environmental review processes generally apply to a smaller range of projects than CEQA.
• Environmental review in other states does not include the substantive components that CEQA requires.
• There is “significant variation” in the extent to which environmental review in other states is applied expansively or narrowly.
• Staff have not identified up-to-date statistics on how the cost and length of environmental review and litigation in other states compares to California.63

For all of these reasons, the Commission should not consider amendments to CEQA’s standing requirements that would limit the public interest standing doctrine that is unique to California law.

citizen in the undifferentiated public interest is 'justiciable,' or appropriate for decision in a California court").
60 Id., citing Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322, fn. 5,; see also Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1020.
61 Plastic Bag, 52 Cal.4th 155, 166, fn. 3.
62 Green v. Obledo (1981) 29 Cal.3d 126, 144.
63 Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), p. 12.

I53
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
B. Reversal of Attorney’s Fees and Cost Awards Against Public Interest Plaintiffs Is Contrary to the Private Attorney General Doctrine and Would Chill Public Participation

Some CEQA critics have asked the Commission to recommend reversal of attorney’s fee awards if a CEQA petitioner loses their case. For example, California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”), which represents commercial developers and publicly challenges environmental regulation,64 proposes that CEQA should be amended such that, “If the plaintiff loses the lawsuit, they pay the builder for their costs.”65 These arguments are contrary to the purpose of the private attorney general doctrine, and would have a chilling effect on the public’s ability to enforce CEQA to protect their communities. As with standing, motive plays no part in the law authorizing petitioners to recover attorney’s fees for bringing lawsuits pursuant to CEQA.66

The private attorney general statute67 authorizes courts to award attorney’s fees to successful plaintiffs who provide evidence demonstrating that the lawsuit met three very high public interest standards: (1) plaintiffs’ action has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; (2) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement are such as to make the award appropriate.68 It is well settled that the private attorney general theory applies to an action to enforce provisions of CEQA.69

In enacting the private attorney general statute,70 the Legislature clarified that the purpose of the law is to encourage – not chill – environmental and other public interest enforcement because bringing successful cases benefits a broad class of citizens:71

64 See e.g. Cal. Build. Indust. Ass’n v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (challenging BAAQMD’s adoption of CEQA thresholds of significance for air pollutants). 65 Little Hoover Commission, Testimony of Dan C. Dunmoyer, CBIA President and CEO (March 16, 2023), p. 3.
66 Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1211. 67 Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
68 See Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th at 1214 (litigant’s personal nonpecuniary motives may not be used to disqualify that litigant from private attorney general enforcement). 69 Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 866, 892-93; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 254. 70 Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
71 Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th at 1217.

I54
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
[S]ubstantial benefits to the general public should not depend upon the financial status of the plaintiff or upon the charity of foundations or upon the charity of public-minded lawyers alone. Where the benefit is conferred upon a large number of persons, it is inequitable that a person who steps forward to enforce the rights should bear the entire cost. AB 1310 [now CCP 1021.5] will rectify the situation by authorizing a court, in its discretion, to grant attorneys’ fees to the successful party under these particular circumstances. The legal system will become a more egalitarian instrument by encouraging attorneys to act as citizen attorneys general and to use the courtrooms to broaden the concept of democracy.”72

CEQA critics’ proposed policies that would reverse attorney fee awards or require petitioners to pay unreasonable costs to bring a CEQA lawsuit are contrary to the Legislature’s intent to have the public act as “citizen attorneys general” to enforce environmental and public health protections, and would make public interest litigation “as a practical matter... infeasible.”73

Reversing attorneys’ fees would simply shield developers and agencies from having to protect the environment. The risk of losing would ensure that, no matter how egregious the environmental damage, no potential plaintiff could take the risk of a suit.

IV. CEQA IS NOT A BARRIER TO HOUSING OR OTHER

DEVELOPMENT

The Commission has heard several misleading narratives from developers and their attorneys about how public participation in the CEQA process is a major barrier to housing production.74 These assumptions are not supported by the facts.

72 Testimony of John R. Phillips to Sen. Judiciary Com., Aug. 16, 1977, in support of Assem. Bill No. 1310 (1977–1978 Reg. Sess.), pp. 7–8 (emphasis added); see also Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th at 1218.
73 Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4th at 1219.
74 CEQA critics like Ms. Hernandez, CBIA, Thomas Law Group, and Professor Elmendorf would prefer if the public remained quiet while their clients’ projects seek approval from local governments.

But that is not how CEQA’s democratic process works.

I55
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
The Commission’s March 16, 2023 Staff Report notes that studies commissioned to address the arguments directed against CEQA have found through empirical analysis that CEQA is not a barrier to housing production.75 In particular, the Rose Foundation’s 2021 report, entitled CEQA: California’s Living Environmental Law, found that the burden of CEQA review is wildly overstated by CEQA critics.76 The report found that only about 200 CEQA lawsuits are filed annually in California, that the rate of litigation of all projects subject to CEQA review is about 2 percent, and that the cost of environmental review is a very small percentage of total costs for many projects.77 The 2021 report further explained that California’s high rates of economic and employment growth between 2012 and 2019 suggest that the extent to which CEQA weighs on the state’s economy is overstated by the law’s critics.78

Just last month, the Rose Foundation issued a new report, entitled CEQA by the Numbers: Myths and Fact, which updates the 2021 report.79 The 2023 report emphasizes the important issues recent CEQA lawsuits have addressed – reducing GHG emissions, mitigating impacts from major developments in high-risk wildfire zones, increasing energy and water efficiency, and forcing developers and public agencies to modify warehouse logistics centers and other industrial projects, to address air and water pollution, increased noise, and traffic safety.80

The report finds that the number of CEQA lawsuits continues to be very low:
only 192 suits on average have been filed annually between 2002 and 2021.81 The litigation rate dropped since the last report – only 1.9% of all projects requiring an environmental review document faced legal challenge. Further, fewer than one quarter of the CEQA cases filed in 2019-2021 challenged housing projects – far less than stated by CEQA critics.82 The report categorizes each of the CEQA cases by

75 Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), pp. 34-35; Janet Smith-Heimer, Jessica Hitchcock, and Greg Goodfellow, CEQA: California’s Living Environmental Law: CEQA’s Role in Housing, Environmental Justice & Climate Change (Rose Foundation, October 2021). Retrieved from: https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-California_s-Living-Environmental-Law-10-25-

21.pdf.
76 Id. at p. 34.
77 Rose Foundation 2021 Report, pp. 22, 48.
78 Little Hoover Commission Staff Report (March 16, 2023), p. 35, citing Rose Foundation 2021 Report, pp. 52-56.
79 See The Housing Workshop, CEQA, California’s Living Environmental Law (May 8, 2023), available at https://rosefdn.org/wp-content/uploads/CEQA-By-the-Numbers-2023-5-5-23-Final.pdf (last visited 5/23/23).
80 Rose Foundation 2023 Report, pp. 6-7.
81 Rose Foundation 2023 Report, p. 3.
82 Id. at pp. 3-4.

I56
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
type of petitioner (e.g., environmental organization, community group, labor union) and type of project challenged (e.g., housing, mixed use, commercial).83 The data disproves critics’ theories that CEQA cases are brought by illegitimate groups and that petitioners are mainly targeting housing projects. For example, the report found only 13 CEQA lawsuits over a 3-year period were brought by labor unions (2% of all CEQA lawsuits), two of which included community groups as co-petitioners.84

The 2023 report analyzes the location of the housing projects challenged in 2019-2021, showing that the majority of housing units challenged in CEQA lawsuits were not located in urban infill areas, but on undeveloped land in remote areas.85 This finding refutes critics’ contentions that CEQA petitioners are mainly targeting infill housing. The report also identifies several new CEQA streamlining measures adopted by the Legislature, and cautions that policy leaders should carefully evaluate these measures — and see how they play out — before further weakening CEQA’s environmental protections.86

Testimony from land use professionals has also emphasized that CEQA review is not a barrier to housing production. Rather, factors like navigating the local land use permit process, local zoning limitations, and local constraints on density and use are major delay factors, even when projects are exempted from CEQA.87

In summary, there is no credible evidence before the Commission which supports a recommendation to further weaken CEQA’s environmental and public health protections, or to restrict the public’s right to enforce these protections.

83 Id. at pp. 1-2, 15-20,
84 Id. at p. 19, 23.
85 Id. at pp. 4-5.
86 Id. at pp. 5-6.
87 See Testimony of Eric Biber, Little Hoover Commission (March 16, 2023), pp. 4-4 (“One of our most important findings is that despite state law that requires all cities and counties zone land for all income levels, local zoning remains a core constraint on new multifamily housing. This directly impacts what type of housing developers propose—and whether they propose any housing development at all…developments in some cities, like San Francisco or San Jose, that are exempt from CEQA do not necessarily experience substantial reductions in timeframes.”).

I57
June 13, 2023

1644-113j
V. THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND CHANGES

WHICH WEAKEN CEQA

California is a healthy and vibrant place to live because of laws like CEQA which keep it that way. Thorough and accurate CEQA review is required for all discretionary development projects in the State, including housing projects, “regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial.”88

It is this Commission’s duty to ensure that the Governor and Legislators receive an accurate and impartial report on the effects of CEQA. As part of that report, the Commission must recognize the environmental and public health achievements that union participation in the CEQA process has effected over the last 50 years to ensure that projects are built safely and sustainably. The Commission must also recognize that, for many communities, CEQA has become the only place where disadvantaged communities and communities of color (which include many workers represented by labor unions), have a voice in addressing the impacts of developing projects in their communities. The Commission must also emphasize the benefits achieved by members of the public in the CEQA process.

Union and community participation in the CEQA process is essential to ensuring that project approval processes are conducted openly, and to ensure that CEQA fulfills its dual purposes of informing the public about the impacts of development and mitigating environmental harm.

Reducing the public’s access to CEQA’s environmental and public health protections and climate change reduction standards is not a good idea for California. Environmental damage and public health disasters led to the enactment of NEPA, CEQA and other environmental laws.89 Weakening CEQA could lead to a return of those problems, and would be experienced for generations to come.

We urge the Commission to recommend that CEQA’s substantive and procedural mandates be preserved, and not to recommend any changes to CEQA that would undermine public participation and the invaluable environmental and public health protections that CEQA has provided to Californians over the last 50 years.

88 14 CCR § 15063(b)(1); Gov. Code § 65889.5(e).
89 See e.g. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal; EPA (1979), The Lovel Canal Tragedy, https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy.html; . Albanese, PhD, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Love Canal Six Years Later - The Legal Legacy (June, 1984), p. 53, available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/95622NCJRS.pdf.

I58
June 13, 2023