Attachment 1 - Resolution for Addendum to Final SEIR 2014-08 — Camarillo City Council, March 11, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CAMARILLO ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) 2014-08 FOR MODIFICATION TO THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT IPD-412 ON 46.88 ACRES OF VACANT

PROPERTY IN THE AIRPORT NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN
The City Council of the City of Camarillo resolves as follows:

SECTION 1. General Findings.

A. Darren Embry submitted application s on behalf of Faring Capital, LLC, for a Modification to an Industrial Planned Development (“IPD”) permit (IPD -412M(1)) to allow for the construction of the Envision Auto & Commerce Center (Reduced Project), consisting of approximately 183,600 square feet of auto center uses (including a dealership-only car wash), approximately 476,550 square feet of limited manufacturing/research and development uses, and an approximately 4,625 -square-foot independently operated car wash (CUP -442), totaling approximately 665,775 square feet, together with a tentative tract map modification (Tract 6123) to subdivide the site into seven (7) lots and a private roadway.

B. City staff has prepared the Addendum to the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) 2014-08 (SCH# 010081043), in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Camarillo Environmental Guidelines.

C. Per section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to an EIR is the appropriate environmental document as only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15261 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. An addendum is not required to be circulated for a public review period under CEQA.

D. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission for the City of Camarillo on February 3, 2026, at which time testimony was heard on the proposed Addendum to the Final SEIR 2014 -08. The Planning Commission having reviewed the Addendum adopted a resolution recommending that City Council adopt the Addendum.

E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 11, 2026, at which time testimony was heard on the Addendum to the Final SEIR 2014-08.

SECTION 2. Approval of Addendum to the Final SEIR 2014-08. Based on the above findings, the City Council of the City of Camarillo adopts the Addendum to the Final SEIR 2014-08 attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 3. Construction. This Resolution must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Resolution. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Resolution be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Resolution.

SECTION 4. Administrative Record. The City Council hereby finds and declares that the Addendum (CEQA Guidelines §15164), together with the previously certified 2016 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 2014-08) and the City’s approved 2023 and

Resolution No. 2026-

Page 2 of 3 ends

2024 Addenda, and all documents incorporated therein by reference (CEQA Guidelines §15150), constitute the primary environmental documentation for the Reduced Project. The City Council further finds and declares that the administrative record for this action includes this Resolution, the Addendum and incorporated prior CEQA documents, the staff report and all attachments, project plans and maps, technical studies and memoranda, all writ ten correspondence received, and all evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing.

All such documents and materials are incorporated by reference into this Resolution as though fully set forth herein, and the City shall maintain the administrative record consistent with CEQA and applicable law.

SECTION 5. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the determinations in this Resolution is based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the matter. The determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

SECTION 6. Preservation. This Resolution does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Resolution’s effective date. Any such amended part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Resolution.

SECTION 7. Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of this matter is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating the matter that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the matter will not exist. One of the major limita tions on analysis of the matter is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.

Somewhat related to this are the limitations on th e City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.

SECTION 8. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.

SECTION 10. Electronic Signatures . This Resolution may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 11. Office of Record. The record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is located in the Department of Community Development, which is the office of record for the matter.

Resolution No. 2026-

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION 12. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is hereby authorized to affix their signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Camarillo, and the City Clerk is directed to attest thereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on March 11, 2026.

________________________________
Mayor
Attested to on _________________

_____________________________
City Clerk

I, Carrie Weal, City Clerk of the City of Camarillo , certify Resolution No. __ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Camarillo at a regular meeting held ____, by the following vote:

YES: Councilmembers:

NO: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

_________________________________
City Clerk

Addendum to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2010081043
prepared by
City of Camarillo
Department of Community Development
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California 93010
Contact: Paul McClaren, Senior Planner
Marc
h 2026
Envision Auto Center & Industrial Park (Mod)

EXHIBIT A

ii
This page intentionally left blank.

iii
AC

RONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• ANSP – Airport North Specific Plan
• AQMP – Air Quality Management Plan
• CBC – California Building Code
• CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
• CMC – Camarillo Municipal Code
• CUP – Conditional Use Permit
• EIR – Environmental Impact Report
• LM – Limited Manufacturing
• MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
• NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • SEIR – Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
• SWPPP – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
• TDM – Transportation Demand Management
• VCAPCD – Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

1 1. INTRODUCTION
This Addendum to the certified 2016 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 2014-08) has been prepared by the City of Camarillo (City), as Lead Agency, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. This Addendum evaluates whether the Reduced Project (IPD- 412M(1)) would result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the 2016 Final SEIR and the City’s approved 2023 and 2024 Addenda.

The Reduced Project is located on approximately 46.87 acres at the southwest corner of U.S.

Highway 101 and Springville Drive within the Airport North Specific Plan area. The project proposes a refined nonresidential development program totaling approximately 665,775 square feet, consisting of approximately 183,600 square feet of auto center uses (including a dealership-only car wash), approximately 476,550 square feet of limited manufacturing and research and development uses (IPD-412M(1)), and an approximately 4,625-square-foot independently operated car wash (CUP-442). Tentative Tract Map (TTM-6123) proposes to subdivide the approximately 46.88-acre site into seven (7) lots and access roadways.

No
residential uses are proposed.

Environmental review for the Project Site includes: (1) the certified 2011 EIR (EIR 2010-2; SCH No. 2010081043); (2) the certified 2016 Final SEIR (SEIR 2014-08); and (3) the City’s approved 2023 and 2024 Addenda (collectively, Prior CEQA Documents). All technical studies, analyses, findings, and mitigation measures contained in the Prior CEQA Documents are incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15150 and remain applicable to the Reduced Springville Component unless expressly superseded herein.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162(a) and 15164(a), a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required only if substantial changes to the project, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance would cause new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Based on the analysis in this Addendum and the administrative record, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(1)–(3) are present. Accordingly, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15164(e), this Addendum shall be considered by the decision-making body in connection with the Project approvals.

2 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1. Location and Setting
The project site is part of the Airport North Specific Plan area in Camarillo, California. This planning area is located between U.S. Highway 101 and the Camarillo Airport and includes land west of Las Posas Road and near Wood Road. The site addressed in this Addendum covers about 47 acres and sits at the southwest corner of U.S. 101 and Springville Drive. It is currently undeveloped and was originally planned as Phase I of the overall buildout for the Specific Plan.

This site is surrounded by a mix of commercial and industrial uses. To the east is vacant land with entitlements approved for development of a regional shopping center that will include a Costco. Additional shopping centers, including the Camarillo Town Center are further east. To the west is an industrial area with L-M zoning to the immediate west and M-2 further west.

To the south are the Camarillo Hills Drain and the Camarillo airport. The U.S. 101 freeway is to the north with residential and a park north of the freeway. The site itself is designated for industrial use and is zoned Limited Manufacturing (L-M). Ventura Boulevard splits the site in two with a parcel south of Ventura Boulevard and the remaining two lots on the north side.

Project Site

3 2.2. Land Use and Zoning
The project site is designated Research and Development in the City’s General Plan and zoned Limited Manufacturing (L-M) under the Airport North Specific Plan (ANSP). These designations encourage employment-generating uses such as light manufacturing, assembly, warehousing, research and development, and supporting commercial services.

The ANSP was updated in 2024 to modernize its land use framework and clarify allowable uses. As part of these updates, Automobile Dealerships and related Auto Center uses were permitted within defined limits, including restrictions on the number of dealerships and total square footage. The Reduced Project remains consistent with these land use and zoning regulations by combining 183,600 square feet of Auto Center uses with 476,550 square feet of Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development uses and a 4,625 square foot independent car wash.

The Reduced Project is fully consistent with the City’s General Plan, LM zoning district, and the ANSP, which together establish the site’s role as a business park and employment center adjacent to the Camarillo Airport and U.S. 101.

2.3. Planning and Environmental History
The Airport North Specific Plan (ANSP) was adopted in 1986, establishing the site for research, office, and industrial uses and supported by a program-level Environmental Impact Report. In June 2011, the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report EIR 2010-2 (SCH #2010081043), which served as the original project-level environmental review for the site.

That EIR evaluated subdivision of the property (Tract T-5812) into up to 25 lots and development of approximately 700,000 square feet of industrial and/or office uses.

In September 2016, the City Council certified Subsequent Environmental Impact Report SEIR 2014-08, which evaluated proposed modifications to the previously approved project. Those modifications included a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2014-2), amendment to the ANSP, a zone change (CZ-322), and modification to the tract map to allow commercial development on approximately 26 acres of the site. Under that entitlement framework, up to approximately 268,500 square feet of commercial development and approximately 198,767 square feet of industrial/office development could occur. The contemplated development was not implemented, and the property remained undeveloped.

In October 2023, the City Council certified an Addendum to the 2016 SEIR, which analyzed the environmental effects of restoring the site to the land use designation and zoning that existed prior to the 2016 approvals. Following that action, the site was returned to a General Plan designation of Industrial (R&D) (GPA 2019-1) and zoning of Limited Manufacturing (L-M) (CZ- 335).

In March 2024, the City Council certified an additional Addendum to the SEIR. The 2024 Addendum summarized the 2023 reversion action and evaluated amendments to the ANSP associated with the reinstated industrial framework, including allowance of automobile

4 dealership uses subject to defined limitations. Consistent with prior evaluations, no specific development proposal was advanced; however, the Addendum analyzed potential development of up to approximately 218,000 square feet of automobile dealership uses and approximately 700,000 square feet of industrial/warehouse uses.

Taken together, this planning and environmental review history demonstrates a longstanding and consistently evaluated intent for industrial and employment-focused use of the site and confirms that subsequent refinements have remained within the scope of the previously certified environmental documents.

3. Project Description (Current Proposal)
The Reduced Project, known as the Envision Auto Center & Industrial Park, represents a refined and reduced version of prior approvals under the Airport North Specific Plan. The proposal includes approximately 183,600 square feet of Auto Center uses (including a dealership-specific car wash), 476,550 square feet of Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development uses, and a 4,625 square foot independent car wash, for a combined total of about 665,775 square feet.

All proposed uses are consistent with the site’s Research and Development General Plan designation, Limited Manufacturing zoning, and the ANSP. Building heights would not exceed 50 feet, with portions stepping down to 40 feet to comply with the Camarillo Airport’s avigation easement. The architectural design must also comply with the Heritage Zone and will undergo review by the City’s Architectural Review Committee.

In summary, the Reduced Project reduces the overall development envelope previously analyzed in the 2016 SEIR and 2024 Addendum, while maintaining consistency with City planning policies and zoning regulations.

Project Overview
• Total Site Area: 46.87 acres (divided into seven new legal parcels) • Total Development: ~665,775 square feet
o 183,600 SF Auto Center (single dealership building + dealership-only car wash) o 476,550 SF Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development o 4,625 SF Independent Car Wash (separately operated)
Site Planning & Access
• Located at US 101 and Springville Drive interchange, adjacent to Camarillo Airport • Internal circulation provided by a new privately maintained main project roadway • Multiple access points from Springville Drive and Ventura Boulevard, including a new signalized intersection
Building Heights & Design
• Maximum height: 50 feet

5 • South of Ventura Boulevard: stepped down to 40 feet per Camarillo Airport Avigation Easement
• Design complies with Heritage Zone and Airport North Specific Plan (ANSP) architectural standards (Mission, Monterey, Spanish, Mediterranean) • Final design review by the Architectural Review Committee required Phasing
• Phase 1: Auto Center, dealership car wash, internal roadways, and key infrastructure • Phase 2: LM West (Buildings A–D, ~209,600 SF)
• Phase 3: LM South of Ventura (Building H, ~55,420 SF) + Independent Car Wash (4,625 SF)
• Phase 4: LM East (Buildings E–G, ~211,500 SF total)
Parking & Circulation
• Auto Center: 1,161 spaces (including EV charging and rooftop/display parking) • LM/R&D: Parking provided consistent with ANSP and CMC ratios (1 per 750 SF for industrial/R&D)
• Car Wash: Parking provided per CMC standards

4. Impact Analysis
This environmental analysis evaluates the Reduced Project (IPD-412M) in relation to the City’s previously certified environmental documents for the Project Site: the 2011 Final EIR (EIR 2010-2; SCH No. 2010081043), the 2016 Final SEIR (SEIR 2014-08), and the City’s approved 2023 and 2024 Addenda (collectively, Prior CEQA Documents). The Prior CEQA Documents include the entitlement history for the site, including the tract approvals (Tract T-5812 and subsequent modifications), General Plan Amendments (including GPA 2014-2 and the reversion action, GPA 2019-1), and implementing zone changes (including CZ-322 and the reversion action, CZ-335), together with subsequent Specific Plan amendments and related approvals.

The Reduced Project is a refinement that reduces development intensity compared to the projects evaluated in the Prior CEQA Documents. Accordingly, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164, this Addendum focuses on whether the Reduced Project would result in (1) any new significant environmental effects, or (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

The Prior CEQA Documents, including technical appendices, adopted mitigation measures, and applicable findings, are incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15150 and remain applicable unless expressly superseded herein. The administrative record consists of the Prior CEQA Documents and the technical materials relied upon for this Addendum, which are available for public review at the City during normal business hours.

6 Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the analysis uses a checklist format to address environmental topics and to identify whether: (1) major revisions to the SEIR are required; (2) new circumstances require major revisions; or (3) new information of substantial importance would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. The checklist also identifies whether previously adopted mitigation measures remain adequate.

For context, the 2011 Final EIR evaluated subdivision of the site and up to approximately 700,000 square feet of industrial/office development and estimated approximately 5,875 daily trips. The 2016 Final SEIR evaluated a revised entitlement framework, including a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2014-2), Airport North Specific Plan amendment, zone change (CZ-322), and tract map modification, under which up to approximately 268,500 square feet of commercial development and approximately 198,767 square feet of industrial/office development could occur, with an estimated 10,548 daily trips. The 2023 and 2024 Addenda addressed the reversion to Industrial (R&D)/Limited Manufacturing (GPA 2019-1; CZ-335) and subsequent Specific Plan amendments allowing auto center uses subject to defined limitations, including evaluation of a larger potential development envelope than proposed herein.

The Reduced Project proposes approximately 665,775 square feet of nonresidential development, consisting of approximately 183,600 square feet of auto center uses (including a dealership-only car wash), approximately 476,550 square feet of Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development uses, and an approximately 4,625-square-foot independently operated car wash (CUP-262). As detailed in this Addendum and supported by the Prior CEQA Documents, the Reduced Project is expected to generate fewer daily trips than the 2016 Project analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR; therefore, the conclusions of the 2016 Final SEIR remain applicable, and this Addendum evaluates whether any new or more severe impacts would occur.

1 4.1 Aesthetics

Page 166 ends

b. Substantially alter or
damage a scenic resource
that is visible from a City
scenic corridor?

Page 166 ends

c. Conflict with applicable
General Plan policies or
zoning regulations
governing scenic quality?
Pages
166 - 167
No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

Page 166 ends

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista that is visible from a City scenic corridor?
The project site is a flat, vacant parcel of land formerly used for agriculture and is currently fallow. Views to the north are dominated by U.S. Highway 101 and residential development in the Camarillo Hills. To the south, views extend across the Camarillo Airport, which is not considered a scenic vista. Long-range views of the Santa Monica Mountains are visible to the southeast and east due to their higher elevation, although some views are partially blocked by intervening development.

The Reduced Project proposes approximately 183,600 square feet of Auto Center uses, including one main dealership building with a dealership-only car wash, plus 476,550 square feet of Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development uses and an additional 4,625 square foot independent car wash. Building heights would not exceed 50 feet, with Building H and the car wash south of Ventura Boulevard stepping down to a 40-foot maximum in compliance with the Camarillo Airport avigation easement.

Because the Santa Monica Mountains are elevated and distant, project buildings would not block or significantly alter these views. No scenic corridors identified in the City’s General Plan

2 or Community Design Element would be adversely affected. Therefore, consistent with the 2016 SEIR findings, the Reduced Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The site does not contain scenic resources such as native landmark trees, rock outcroppings, or historic structures. The U.S. Highway 101 corridor adjacent to the site is not designated as a state scenic highway. The only valued scenic resource in the area is the long-range view of the Santa Monica Mountains. Because the mountains are located at a much higher elevation, the Reduced Project would not block or damage these views. c. Would the project conflict with applicable General Plan policies or zoning regulations governing scenic quality?
The Reduced Project reduces the overall footprint and square footage compared to what was previously studied under IPD-412 and the 2016 SEIR. All proposed uses are consistent with the site’s Research and Development (R&D) General Plan designation and Limited Manufacturing (LM) zoning. The independent car wash is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit under the Camarillo Municipal Code.

The site is within the City’s Heritage Zone and subject to the Airport North Specific Plan (ANSP). Both require adherence to architectural themes such as Mission, Monterey, Spanish, or Mediterranean, or modern interpretations of these styles. The Reduced Project incorporates these design elements, including tile roofing, arches, columns, and decorative windows. Final design review by the City’s Architectural Review Committee will ensure compliance with Heritage Zone standards.

Accordingly, the Reduced Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies, zoning regulations, or specific plan requirements governing scenic quality. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
New lighting sources would include streetlights, security lighting, interior and exterior building lights, and vehicle headlights. These are similar to existing lighting in the surrounding business park, shopping center, and airport areas. As required by the Camarillo Zoning Ordinance, CMC Chapter 19.47 (Lighting Ordinance), and Specific Plan standards, all exterior lighting would be shielded, directed downward, and designed to avoid light spillover beyond the project site. Flashing, blinking, or high-intensity lighting would be prohibited. Compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards and City codes will further ensure appropriate lighting design.

Daytime glare sources could include building materials, glazing, paving, and parked vehicles.

However, the project’s architectural styles (Mediterranean/Spanish) and materials avoid highly reflective finishes. Design review under the Heritage Zone requirements ensures compatibility with the surrounding area and minimization of glare.

3 Lighting and glare would not adversely affect nearby roadways, the Camarillo Airport, or scenic views.

Conclusion
The Envision Auto & Commerce Center Reduced Project is smaller in scale than the previously approved plans and fully consistent with the City of Camarillo’s General Plan, zoning, and design standards. The project:

1. Would not block or degrade scenic vistas.

2. Would not damage scenic resources along a state scenic highway.

3. Is consistent with all applicable scenic quality regulations.

4. Would not create significant new sources of light or glare.

Therefore, the Reduced Project would not result in any new or more severe aesthetic impacts than those identified in the 2016 SEIR, and all impacts remain less than significant.

4 4.2 Agriculture & Forestry Resources

Page 168 ends

b. Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act
contract?

Page 168 ends

c. Involve other changes in
the existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature, could
result in conversion of
Farmland to non-
agricultural use?

Page 169 ends

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
The Project Site consists of flat, vacant land formerly used for agriculture but fallow since 2013. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (2018), the site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance, not Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The 2016 Final SEIR determined impacts to agricultural resources would be less than significant, citing the site’s relatively small size, the absence of available irrigation water, and the urbanized setting.

The Reduced Project proposes approximately 183,600 square feet of Auto Center uses, 476,550 square feet of Limited Manufacturing/Research & Development, and a 4,625 square foot independent car wash, consistent with the City’s Research and Development land use

5 designation and LM zoning. Because the site is not mapped as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland, no such farmland would be converted. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The Project Site is designated Research and Development in the City’s General Plan and zoned Limited Manufacturing (LM). It is not zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2018). The Reduced Project is consistent with the City’s long-term planning framework for this site, which has designated it for non-agricultural, employment-focused development since adoption of the Airport North Specific Plan in 1986. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The Project Site has been planned for urban development for decades under the Airport North Specific Plan (1986) and subsequent approvals. The surrounding area is characterized by urban and transportation uses, including U.S. 101 to the north, residential and commercial uses to the east, and the Camarillo Airport to the south. Active agricultural operations are limited in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the Reduced Project would not create secondary pressures leading to conversion of farmland elsewhere in the area.

Conclusion
The Project Site has been fallow for more than a decade, is classified only as Farmland of Local Importance, and is not subject to agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract.

Surrounding land is urbanized and does not support active farmland conversion pressure.

Accordingly, the Reduced Project would not convert Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland, would not conflict with agricultural zoning or contracts, and would not indirectly result in farmland conversion. Therefore, the Reduced Project would not result in any new or more severe Impacts on agricultural resources impacts than those identified in the 2016 SEIR, and all impacts remain less than significant.

6 4.3 Air Quality

Page 114 ends

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project would not conflict with the 2007 AQMP because it did not generate population growth or new housing that would alter regional growth forecasts. The 2022 Ventura County AQMP, adopted by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) in December 2022, similarly does not provide consistency criteria for commercial or industrial projects. Instead, the VCAPCD recommends determining AQMP consistency by evaluating whether a project would result in population growth beyond that assumed in the AQMP.

Like the 2016 Project, the Reduced Project does not propose any residential uses and therefore does not generate population growth within the Camarillo Growth Area. For this reason, the project would not conflict with implementation of the 2022 AQMP.

7 b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ROC and/or NOx emissions?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that construction and operational emissions would exceed VCAPCD thresholds for ROC and NOx, but that mitigation measures (AQ-1 through AQ-5) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

The Reduced Project would also generate emissions during construction and operation:
• Construction: Temporary emissions of dust and equipment exhaust. VCAPCD does not set numerical thresholds for construction, but requires adherence to its control measures. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (dust suppression, clean and efficient equipment operation), construction-related emissions would be controlled and impacts would remain less than significant. • Operation: Emissions from area sources, energy use, and mobile sources. Mobile source emissions are based on traffic estimates from the Stantec Traffic Memo (2023), which identified 9,140 daily trips for the Reduced Project compared to 10,548 trips for the 2016 Project.

Air pollutant emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (version 2022.1.1.35).

Similar to the 2016 Project, operational emissions are anticipated to exceed ROC and NOx thresholds. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 through AQ-5 (low- emission water heaters, low-emission landscaping equipment, project-wide TDM program, and TDM mitigation fee), operational emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Table 1 Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emission Source ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 40 41 67 .18 26 12
VCAPCD Significance
Thresholds 25 25 NA NA NA NA
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No
ROC: reactive organic compounds; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOX: sulfur oxides; PM10: particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter; NA: not applicable
See Appendix C for modeling details and CalEEMod results.

Notes: Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.

8 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of fugitive dust, carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, and/or San Joaquin Valley Fever spores?
The Project Site is not adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, or hospitals. No new sensitive receptors have been introduced near the site since certification of the 2016 Final SEIR. The Reduced Project would generate fewer daily trips than the 2016 Project (9,140 vs. 10,548), meaning pollutant exposure would be less than what was previously studied. Traffic operations at nearby intersections are projected to remain at LOS B or better.
d. Would the project result in other emissions that create objectionable odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The 2016 Final SEIR found that commercial and light industrial uses at the site would not be expected to generate objectionable odors. Odor complaints are typically associated with heavy industrial operations, refineries, landfills, or wastewater facilities, none of which are proposed.

The Reduced Project includes Auto Center uses and Limited Manufacturing, both of which are consistent with surrounding industrial development. The nearest sensitive receptors are not in proximity to the site. Any odors generated would be temporary, limited in scope, and comparable to existing industrial uses in the area.

Conclusion
The Reduced Project would not conflict with the Ventura County AQMP and would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. As with prior approvals, construction and operation would result in emissions exceeding VCAPCD thresholds for ROC and NOx; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, all air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

9 4.4 Biological Resources

Where
was
Impact
Analyzed
in the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No N/A
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery project sites?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No N/A

10 4.4 Biological Resources

Where
was
Impact
Analyzed
in the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
e. Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No N/A
f. Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Pages
170 - 171
No No No N/A
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project Site was historically farmed for row crops until 2008 and has been fallow since that time. Regular cultivation eliminated any native habitat or special-status species that may have been present decades ago. A 2024 Biological Assessment Report by Rincon Consultants (Appendix D) included a reconnaissance-level biological survey and found no sensitive species or bird nests on-site.

As with the 2016 Project, there remains some potential for migratory burrowing owls or other wildlife to be present during construction. Therefore, the Reduced Project will continue to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (pre-construction survey for burrowing owls) and BIO- 2 (biological monitoring during initial ground disturbance). b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The site does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The surrounding area is urbanized or historically farmed and does not provide habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife communities.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

11 The site contains no wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The Camarillo Hills Drain is regulated under California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1600 permitting procedures, but the Reduced Project does not propose alterations to this feature. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery Project Sites? The site is bisected by Ventura Boulevard and Springville Drive and is surrounded by urban and agricultural uses. The area is not part of a designated wildlife corridor and does not support nursery sites.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? There are no protected trees or local biological resources on-site, and the City’s ordinances do not designate the site for habitat protection.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).

Conclusion
The Reduced Project site has been fallowed since 2008 and does not contain sensitive biological resources, wetlands, or wildlife corridors. The 2024 biological survey confirmed no special-status species or nesting birds on-site. With continued implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, potential impacts to burrowing owls or other low-mobility wildlife would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to biological resources remain less than significant with mitigation.

12 4.5 Cultural & Tribal Resources

N/A*

N/A N/A N/A N/A

1. Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k)?

13 4.5 Cultural & Tribal Resources

2. A resource determined
by the lead agency, in
its discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In
applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c)
of Public

d. Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Pages
171 - 172
No No No Yes
*New CEQA checklist item added after the 2016 Final SEIR a. Substantial adverse change to a historical resource (§15064.5) The Project Site has been in agricultural use for decades and contains no buildings or structures. A 2024 cultural resources assessment (Rincon Consultants) identified a dirt irrigation ditch and associated pump related to past agricultural operations; however, these features are not eligible for federal, State, or local historic listing. Consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR, the Reduced Project would not adversely affect historical resources.

b. Substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource (§15064.5) Archival review and previous environmental documents indicate there is potential for unknown historic-period archaeological resources (e.g., Springville church and cemetery remains) and prehistoric resources in native alluvial sediments. Although no archaeological resources were recorded on-site during the 2024 Rincon survey, the possibility of encountering subsurface resources remains.

As with the 2016 Final SEIR, impacts will be reduced to less than significant with implementation of:
• Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3 (2016 Final SEIR): inadvertent discovery procedures and monitoring during ground disturbance.

14 • Mitigation Measures ILS-1-3 (2011 Springville Commercial Final EIR): construction halted and qualified professionals and appropriate agencies engaged to evaluate, protect, and manage any discoveries.
c. Substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource (§21074) The 2016 Final SEIR predates CEQA’s requirement for Tribal Cultural Resource analysis. To comply with AB 52 and SB 18, the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in 2023 and distributed consultation notices to 12 affiliated tribes. • AB 52 Consultation: One tribe, the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, requested consultation. Following review of the project scope and past environmental documentation, no tribal cultural resources were identified, and consultation concluded September 28, 2023.
• SB 18 Consultation: Letters were sent in December 2023. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians responded, requesting no further consultation unless future discoveries occur or project scope changes. No resources of concern were identified.

As no tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation or field studies, the Reduced Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to such resources. d. Disturbance of human remains
Archival and other background research indicated there is the potential for encountering historic-period archaeological resources associated with the former Springville church and cemetery. Records indicate that remains were removed, however, the potential exists for previously unidentified human remains to be encountered during grading. As required by Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-3, inadvertent discovery procedures must be followed, including immediate notification of the County Coroner and Native American Heritage Commission, if applicable. With these measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Conclusion
The Reduced Project site does not contain historical structures, recorded archaeological sites, or identified tribal cultural resources. However, as with prior analyses, there is potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains. With implementation of existing mitigation measures (CR-1, CR-3, ILS-1 through 3), potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources remain less than significant with mitigation.

15 4.6 Energy

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A* N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
N/A* N/A N/A N/A N/A
* New CEQA checklist item added after the 2016 Final SEIR a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation?
At the time of certification of the 2011 Final EIR and 2016 Final SEIR, the potential for projects to result in wasteful or inefficient energy use was already understood. Under current standards, the Reduced Project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11). These codes mandate energy-efficient design and construction practices, including requirements for lighting, mechanical systems, water efficiency, material conservation, and overall environmental quality.

During construction, compliance with applicable regulations (e.g., idling restrictions, proper equipment maintenance) would further limit unnecessary fuel consumption. During operation, compliance with Title 24 and CALGreen would ensure that energy demand is minimized through efficient building design, materials, and systems.

Therefore, the Reduced Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

16 b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Reduced Project does not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Instead, it must comply with California’s regulatory framework, including:
• Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (Part 6), requiring energy-efficient building performance.
• CALGreen Code (Part 11), requiring mandatory measures for water and energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and sustainable construction practices. • City of Camarillo General Plan goals for sustainability and energy efficiency.

By meeting these requirements, the Reduced Project would be consistent with and supportive of state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency objectives.

Conclusion
The Reduced Project would comply with all applicable energy efficiency regulations, including Title 24 and CALGreen standards. As a result, the project would not use energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner and would not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, adherence to the measures of CALGreen would ensure that the Reduced Project would not conflict with state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the proposed project will continue to have no impact.

Therefore, the Reduced Project would not result in any new or more severe energy impacts than those identified in the 2016 SEIR, and all impacts remain less than significant.

17 4.7 Geology & Soils

Where
was
Impact
Analyzed
in the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A
b. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving strong seismic
ground shaking?
Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A
c. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A
d. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death
involving landslides?
Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A
e. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil
during project construction
and/or operation?

Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A

18 4.7 Geology & Soils

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
FINAL
SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
2016
FINAL
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016
FINAL SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016

FINAL SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
f. Be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on site
or off site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Pages
173 – 174

No No No N/A
g. Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Pages
173 – 174

No No No N/A
h. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater
disposal systems where
sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
Pages
173 – 174
No No No N/A
i. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or Project Site or
unique geologic feature?
Pages
171 – 172
No No No Yes
a.-d. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides.

The Project Site is not underlain by an active fault, is outside of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, and is not in a landslide/mudslide hazard zone (City of Camarillo General Plan). Although the site is located in an area with liquefaction potential, site-specific geotechnical reports (Geolabs 2005, updated 2010 and 2023) reviewed and approved by the City conclude that non-residential development is feasible with standard engineering practices. Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) would ensure seismic safety.

19 e. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? The Project Site does not contain natural water courses. Drainage flows to existing storm drains on Ventura Boulevard, which were sized for planned buildout. Development would not alter drainage patterns in a way that would result in substantial erosion or topsoil loss. f–g. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is expansive, unstable, would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- project site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse creating substantial risk to life or property.

The Geolabs investigations (2005, 2010, 2023) confirm the site is suitable for development.

Compliance with the CBC would address expansive soils and unstable conditions, avoiding substantial risk to people or property.
h. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Project Site is within the Camarillo Sanitary District service area. Wastewater would be conveyed to sewer lines for treatment. No septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed.
i. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or Project Site or unique geologic feature?
No known paleontological resources exist on the Project Site; past agricultural activities likely disturbed potential surface or shallow subsurface remains. However, Mitigation Measure CR- 2 (inadvertent discovery procedures) would be implemented if resources are encountered during excavation.

Conclusion
The Project Site—previously evaluated for up to 218,000 SF of automobile center and supporting uses and up to 600,000 SF of limited manufacturing— and now being evaluated for a total of
665,775 SF, would not result in new or more severe geology or soils impacts compared to the 2016 Final SEIR. With compliance with the California Building Code and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2, impacts related to seismic hazards, unstable or expansive soils, erosion, wastewater disposal, and paleontological resources would remain less than significant.

20 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

For the Reduced Project, operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (version 2022.1.1.35) (see Appendix C). The CalEEMod results (annual, unmitigated) are summarized in Table 4.

Table 2 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Mobile 2,152
Area 9.7
Energy 2,556
Water 327
Solid Waste 279
Refrigerants 28
Vegetation (sequestration) -58
Total 5,294
Modified Project Service Population 4,570

21 Reduced Project GHG Emissions per Service Population 1.16 MTCO2e/person/year 2016 Final SEIR SCAQMD GHG Threshold 4.8 MTCO 2e/person/year Exceeds Threshold? No
See Table 2.5 “Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated (Annual)” emissions. CalEEMod worksheets for GHG in Appendix C.

As shown above, energy use and mobile sources represent the largest contributors to operational GHG emissions, followed by water and solid waste; vegetation provides a small net sequestration benefit.

Screening approach/consistency. CalEEMod also reports exceedance of its internal default annual CO₂e screening value (3,000 MTCO₂e/year). However, consistent with the approach used in the 2016 Final SEIR for this site, the City evaluates operational GHG significance using the service-population efficiency metric (MTCO₂e/service population member) to maintain comparability across project iterations and prior CEQA documents.

Based on the updated modeling, the Reduced Springville Component would generate approximately 1.16 MTCO₂e per service population member, which is below the 2016 Final SEIR screening level and lower than the 2016 Project’s efficiency (1.69 MTCO₂e/person). b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As concluded in the 2016 Final SEIR, the project would remain consistent with applicable State GHG reduction goals and would comply with applicable energy efficiency and green building requirements (e.g., CALGreen/Title 24 as applicable at time of building permit).

The Reduced Project does not introduce land uses that would change this conclusion.

Conclusion
Operational GHG emissions would occur; however, based on updated CalEEMod modeling and consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR’s efficiency-based screening approach, the Reduced Project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe GHG impacts compared to prior approvals. Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain less than significant.

22 4.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Page 175 ends

c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?

Page 175 ends

d. Be located on a Project Site
that is included on a list of
hazardous material Project
Sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?

Page 175 ends

23 4.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Pages
175 - 177
No No No N/A
f. Substantially physically
interfere with the City’s
designated evacuation
routes?

Page 177 ends

g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires?

Page 177 ends

a.-b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Both the 2011 Final EIR and 2016 Final SEIR found that industrial uses at the site could involve hazardous materials. However, these materials are strictly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels:
• Transport is regulated by U.S. Department of Transportation and state agencies. • Storage and use are regulated by OSHA and verified through inspections by the Ventura County Fire Department.

The Project Site (665,775 SF) is subject to the same rules, so it would not result in new or more severe impacts.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

24 The nearest school, Gateway Community School, is 0.85 miles away. No schools are within

0.25 miles.
d. Would the project be located on a Project Site that is included on a list of hazardous material Project Sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? A Phase I ESA (2005) and Limited Phase II ESA investigated the site. Low levels of agricultural chemicals (DDT, DDD, DDE, Chlordane) were detected in soil, but all were below U.S. EPA cleanup thresholds. The site is not on any state or federal hazardous materials lists. Thus, soils are not considered hazardous.
e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site lies within the Camarillo Airport North Specific Plan and Compatibility Land Use Plan (CLUP). Key restrictions include:
• Height limits based on FAA Part 77 and CLUP standards. • Coverage limited to 50% in the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ).

The Project Site proposes up to 665,775 SF, or 33% site coverage, well below the 50% cap.

Maximum building heights (35–50 feet depending on proximity to the airport) will comply with Comprehensive Land Use Plan easements. Plans will be reviewed by the City and Airport Manager.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The 2016 SEIR determined that the project would not interfere with emergency access. The projects envisioned for the project site would generate fewer trips than the 2016 Project (Stantec 2023) and include roadways designed to City standards. Additionally, development of the envisioned projects will include considerations for emergency access and evacuation. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The site is in a developed area bounded by Highway 101, Camarillo Airport, and other urban uses. There are no nearby wildlands. Therefore, the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Conclusion
The project envisioned on the Project Site would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing hazardous materials; is not located on or near a listed hazardous

25 site; maintains compliance with the Camarillo Airport CLUP; and includes adequate emergency access. No schools or wildlands are located nearby. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR, and all impacts would remain less than significant.

26 4.10 Hydrology & Water Quality

Page 179 ends

c. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
Project Site?
Pages
178-179
No No No N/A
d. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or off-Project Site?

Page 180 ends

e. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of
the Project Site or area,
including through the
Pages
178-179
No No No N/A

27 4.10 Hydrology & Water Quality

Page 180 ends

g. Be located in a flood hazard
zone and risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?

Page 180 ends

h. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?

Page 179 ends

28 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction of the Project Site will require coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, which mandates preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The SWPPP will include best practices such as silt fencing, sandbag barriers, stabilized entrances, and proper waste handling to prevent runoff pollution.

For long-term operations, the project must prepare a Post Construction Stormwater Management Plan (PCSMP) consistent with the City’s MS4 Permit and the Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual. Because on-site soils have low infiltration capacity, runoff will be treated with biofiltration and detention systems rather than infiltration basins. These features will ensure peak runoff does not exceed pre-development 100-year storm levels and that runoff is treated before leaving the site.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
h. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The site is not a recharge area, and it is not feasible to infiltrate stormwater into local aquifers. The 2024 Water Report (Jensen Design & Survey, Appendix G) confirmed that the proposed water system meets City and Ventura County Fire Protection District standards and has adequate supply for the project. Groundwater demand from the project will be substantially less than the historic irrigation demand when the site was farmed. c.-f. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-Project Site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-Project Site, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows?
Stormwater from the site drains to Ventura Boulevard storm drains, which were sized to handle development in the area. The project will not alter any streams or rivers. With biofiltration and detention BMPs in place, stormwater volumes and flows will remain equal to or less than pre-development conditions. The project will therefore not create new flooding, erosion, or polluted runoff concerns.
g. Would the project be located in a flood hazard zone and risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The site is not located in a 100-year floodplain, dam inundation zone, or other flood hazard area. Flood risks are not present, and pollutant release from inundation is not expected.

29 Conclusion
The Project Site would comply with all federal, state, and local stormwater and water quality requirements, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, MS4 Permit, and City design standards. Biofiltration BMPs and detention systems will ensure runoff is properly managed, groundwater will not be adversely affected, and the site is not subject to flood hazards.

Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe water or hydrological impacts than those analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR, and all impacts would remain less than significant.

30 4.11 Land Use & Planning

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established neighborhood or
community?
Pages
58-59
No No No N/A
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation or
applicable goal or policy
from the City of Camarillo
General Plan that was
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Pages
59-67
No No No N/A
a. Would the project physically divide an established neighborhood or community? The Project Site has never contained residential uses and is surrounded by commercial and industrial development. As found in the 2016 Final SEIR, development here would not divide an established community. The project envisioned (665,775 SF of Auto Center and limited manufacturing) is on the same site and under the Airport North Specific Plan, which has long planned for employment uses.
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation or applicable goal or policy from the City of Camarillo General Plan that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The 2016 Final SEIR found the project consistent with the City’s General Plan, including land use, circulation, recreation, community design, safety, and noise policies.

The Project Site remains consistent with those standards:
• Located in the Heritage Zone, which requires Mission, Monterey, Spanish, or Mediterranean design themes. The project includes features such as barrel tiles and arched windows, and all buildings will undergo review by the Architectural Review Committee.
• The Airport North Specific Plan was amended to formally allow Auto Center and Supporting Uses within the Specific Plan. The Ventura County Airport Land Use

31 Commission (ALUC) reviewed the amendment on February 2, 2024, and found the concept compatible.
• Building heights will not exceed 50 feet, consistent with the amended Specific Plan and the CLUP.
• All uses will continue to comply with Limited Manufacturing zoning (L-M) and the City’s General Plan employment designations.

With these design standards and regulatory reviews, the Project Site and individual buildings on the site would remain consistent with applicable land use plans and policies.

Conclusion
The Project Site, nor the projects envisioned would divide an established neighborhood, and with compliance with the General Plan, Airport North Specific Plan, Heritage Zone design standards, and L-M zoning requirements, it would not conflict with land use policies or regulations. Therefore, land use and planning impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR.

32 4.12 Mineral Resources

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
Pages
180-181
No No No N/A
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery Project Site
delineated in the City of
Camarillo General Plan,
specific plan, or other
applicable land use plan?
Pages
180-181
No No No N/A
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery Project Site delineated in the City of Camarillo General Plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use plan?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that no mineral resources of statewide or regional significance are located in the City of Camarillo. The Project Site has no history of oil or mineral extraction, and no such resources are known to occur on the property.

The Camarillo General Plan does not identify the site as containing locally important mineral resources or recovery areas. The Project Site is consistent with the Airport North Specific Plan, which designates the property for employment generating uses to include research and development.

Conclusion
The Project Site contains no known mineral resources, is not identified in the Camarillo General Plan or other planning documents as a mineral recovery area and has not historically been used for mineral extraction. Therefore, the proposed modification would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resources, and impacts would remain no impact, consistent with the 2016 Final SEIR.

33 4.13 Noise

10.34.120 of the City of
Camarillo Municipal Code?
Pages
140 - 142
No No No N/A
b. Generate a substantial
temporary (non-
construction) or permanent
increase in noise levels at
existing sensitive receptors
in the vicinity of the Project
Site?
Pages
143 - 146
No No No N/A
c. Generate excessive ground
borne vibration?
Pages
142 - 143
No No No N/A
d. Expose people residing or
working in the project area
to excessive noise levels from
aircraft operations from
Camarillo Airport?

Pages
146 - 147
No No No N/A
a. Would the project generate construction noise levels that exceed the Noise Ordinance exterior or interior noise standards at residential properties during the hours specified in Section 10.34.120 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code? The 2016 Final SEIR determined that construction noise would not exceed City of Camarillo Noise Ordinance standards because the site is located in a commercial/industrial area, and the nearest residences are approximately 1,100 feet away. Construction activities are restricted to 7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. on weekdays per CMC §10.34.120, avoiding nighttime disturbance.

Modeling with the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) shows that simultaneous use of equipment such as bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks would generate about 54 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) at the nearest residences.

These homes already experience noise from Highway 101 traffic within the 70 dBA contour

34 (Camarillo Noise Element 2015). As a result, construction noise would be well below existing ambient conditions and would not be considered significant. b. Would the project generate a substantial temporary (non-construction) or permanent increase in noise levels at existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site? The 2016 Final SEIR found traffic from the 2016 Project would increase local roadway noise by about 0.5 dBA CNEL, an imperceptible change. The project envisioned is of similar scale and would therefore generate the same 0.5 dBA CNEL increase, which remains below applicable thresholds.

Stationary noise sources such as HVAC equipment will be shielded and muffled to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. Shielding reduces equipment levels from about 66 dBA at 50 feet to below 51 dBA Leq at nearby buildings, which is far less than existing freeway and airport noise.

The public car wash was specifically evaluated in the updated noise study. Results confirmed that operational noise from the car wash, including dryers and pumps, would remain below City of Camarillo standards at the nearest sensitive receptors. Modeled car wash noise levels were measured at 42.6 dBA and found to be less than both ordinance thresholds and existing ambient conditions. Because the site is located within the 65–70 dBA contour from Highway 101 (City Noise Element), car wash noise would not substantially increase the background environment.
c. Would the project generate excessive ground borne vibration? Construction activities would generate low levels of vibration. At the nearest residences (1,100 feet away), modeled vibration would be about 0.0033 in/sec PPV, well below the FTA threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV for potential building damage. Operational vibration sources, such as delivery trucks and waste collection vehicles, would be less intense than construction equipment.

Table 3 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment Reference Vibration
(25 feet) in/sec PPV 1
Nearest Residence
(1,100 feet) in/sec PPV Exceed Threshold?2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.0033 No
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0014 No
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0012 No
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.0002 No
1- FTA 2018
2 Threshold used is the FTA’s vibration damage potential threshold for non-engineered timber and masonry building structures of 0.2 in/sec PPV.
d. Would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations from Camarillo Airport? The site is located just north of Camarillo Airport. The City’s Noise Element identifies the project site within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for future aircraft noise, which is below the 75 dBA CNEL standard for industrial and commercial uses. Occasional flyovers from propeller

35 planes and helicopters may be audible outdoors but would not exceed thresholds of significance.

Conclusion
The Springville Component is in a commercial/industrial area already influenced by freeway and airport noise. Construction noise will be temporary and lower than ambient highway noise, operational traffic noise increases will be negligible, stationary sources (including HVAC and the car wash) will comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, and vibration levels will be minimal. Aircraft noise will remain within General Plan standards. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the Springville Component would remain less than significant.

36 4.14 Population & Housing

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions to
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly or indirectly?
Pages
181-182
No No No N/A
b. Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Pages
181-182
No No No N/A
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly) or indirectly?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the 2016 Project would not displace housing units and that approximately 25 percent of the projected 980 employees (i.e., 245 employees) would require housing in the City; the SEIR concluded that existing and future housing stock was sufficient to accommodate those employees. The proposed project consists exclusively of non-residential uses, including an automobile center and supporting uses and limited manufacturing as permitted under Chapter 19.28 of the Camarillo Municipal Code. The Project Site contains no housing and does not propose residential development.

The Project Site has long been planned for urban industrial and employment uses under the City’s General Plan and Airport North Specific Plan, which expressly contemplates industrial and related uses but does not include residential uses.

The Project does not extend infrastructure into undeveloped areas or change the pattern of land uses such that would directly or indirectly induce population growth beyond that evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Because the Project would not introduce new residents or housing and would not result in employment beyond the scope of analyses previously considered, it would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the region.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Project does not include any residential development, and there are no existing housing units on the Project Site. As such, the Project would not displace people or housing, and no mitigation or replacement housing would be necessary.

37 Conclusion
The proposed project would not introduce residential uses, would not displace existing housing or residents, and would not expand infrastructure or otherwise alter land use patterns in a manner that would directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. The Project Site contains no existing housing, has long been designated for industrial and employment-oriented development, and remains consistent with the growth assumptions evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR and subsequent 2023 and 2024 Addenda. No new or more severe population or housing impacts would occur as compared to those previously analyzed, and no mitigation is required. Accordingly, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to population and housing beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

38 4.15 Public Services & Recreation

1. Fire protection? Pages
183-184
No No No N/A

2. Police protection? Page 184 No No No N/A

3. Schools? Page 184 No No No N/A

4. Parks? Page 185 No No No N/A

5. Other public facilities? Page 185 No No No N/A
b. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
Pages
185-186 No No No N/A
c. Include recreational facilities
or require the construction
or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Pages
185-186 No No No N/A

39 a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities? b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
c. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project would not introduce residential uses, would not displace existing housing or residents, and would not induce population growth beyond that evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR. As such, the project would not generate additional demand for schools, parks, or other population-dependent public services. The Project consists of non-residential development consistent with the long-established industrial and employment-focused land use framework for the site.

Any incremental demand for police, fire protection, emergency response, or general governmental services would be typical of industrial/commercial development already contemplated and analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR. The project would not require the construction of new or expanded public service facilities and would not result in physical environmental impacts related to the provision of such services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe public services impacts than previously analyzed.

Because the proposed project would not introduce new residents or otherwise increase the City’s population, it would not increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. The project does not include recreational facilities, does not necessitate construction or expansion of such facilities, and does not result in indirect growth that would generate additional recreational demand. As previously determined in the 2016 Final SEIR, development of the site with employment-based uses does not result in impacts related to recreational resources.

Accordingly, no new or more severe recreation impacts would occur.

Conclusion
The proposed project remains consistent with the land use assumptions evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR and subsequent 2023 and 2024 Addenda and would not introduce population growth or residential development that would increase demand on public services or recreational facilities. The project would not necessitate construction of new or expanded service facilities, would not increase recreational demand, and would not result in any new or more severe physical environmental effects related to public services or recreation beyond those previously identified in the 2016 Final SEIR..

40 4.16 Transportation

N/A N/A N/A N/A
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3(b) for the
reduction of vehicle miles
travelled (VMT)?

N/A*

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Pages
83 - 85
No No No Yes
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Pages
85 -86
No No No N/A
* New CEQA checklist item added after the 2016 Final SEIR a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The 2016 Final SEIR determined that the approved project would not conflict with applicable transportation plans, policies, or programs, including those supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and the Airport North Specific Plan circulation framework. Vehicular access would be provided via West Ventura Boulevard and an internal private roadway designed consistent with applicable City standards. The project does not remove or preclude transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities and would include transportation demand management strategies to support alternative travel modes. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and would not result in new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

41 Following certification of the 2016 Final SEIR, CEQA established Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the transportation significance metric. However, consistent with CEQA Guidelines and recent case law, projects relying on a previously certified EIR are not required to prepare a VMT analysis where the prior analysis remains valid and the refined project remains within the scope of the previously analyzed transportation impacts. A November 2023 traffic memorandum prepared for the project concluded that the proposed project would generate approximately 1,408 fewer daily trips than the 2016 project, would not create new significant intersection impacts, and remains consistent with the findings of the 2016 Final SEIR.

Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe transportation impacts and is not required to prepare a new VMT analysis under CEQA Guidelines §15064.3(b). c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The 2016 Final SEIR identified Mitigation Measure TC-1, requiring a traffic signal at the intersection of West Ventura Boulevard and the primary project access when warranted, ensuring acceptable operations and reducing impacts to less than significant. The proposed project includes a signalized access along the east–west segment of West Ventura Boulevard consistent with TC-1, along with additional site access points designed to City standards. As such, the proposed circulation system would not introduce hazardous design features or incompatible uses and would not result in new or more severe safety impacts beyond those evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
The 2016 Final SEIR concluded that site access and circulation would operate acceptably and be designed consistent with applicable City emergency access requirements. The proposed project maintains compliance with General Plan circulation policies, provides multiple points of access via West Ventura Boulevard and internal roadways, and includes a signalized entry that supports safe and efficient emergency response. Emergency vehicles would not be subject to unacceptable delays. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe emergency access impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

Conclusion
The proposed project remains consistent with the transportation assumptions evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR and subsequent Addenda. The project does not conflict with applicable transportation plans or policies, does not require preparation of a new VMT analysis, would not create hazardous design conditions, and would maintain adequate emergency access. Traffic generation would be reduced compared to the previously analyzed project, and all applicable mitigation remains in place. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe transportation impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

42 4.17 Utilities & Service Systems

N/A N/A N/A N/A
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Pages
186 - 187
No No No N/A
d. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

Page 187 ends

e. Comply with federal, state,
and local management and
reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?

Page 187 ends

*New CEQA checklist item added after the 2016 Final SEIR a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,

43 natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that existing wastewater, storm drainage, and related infrastructure had sufficient capacity to accommodate the previously approved project, resulting in less-than-significant impacts. A 2024 Water Service Impact Study (Appendix H of 2024 addendum) confirms that the onsite water system has been designed consistent with City and Ventura County Fire Protection District standards and is adequately sized to meet project demands. The project would not exceed previously analyzed infrastructure capacity and would not necessitate construction of new or expanded municipal utilities. Connection to electric power and telecommunications services would occur through coordination with service providers under standard City review and approval procedures. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require construction or relocation of new or expanded utility facilities that would result in new or more severe environmental effects beyond those previously evaluated.
b. Comply with the applicable water purveyor water conservation ordinance requirements for new development projects?
Although not specifically addressed in the 2016 Final SEIR, the proposed project is required to comply with the City’s water conservation requirements, including Camarillo Municipal Code provisions and applicable drought management ordinances. Landscaping and irrigation systems would utilize water-efficient design in compliance with City standards. c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? The 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the Camarillo Wastewater Treatment Plant had adequate capacity to serve projected wastewater flows associated with the previously approved project, with treatment remaining compliant with applicable regulatory requirements. The proposed project is located on the same site analyzed in the 2016 Final SEIR and would generate wastewater within the range previously evaluated. Updated wastewater planning documentation indicates continued available system capacity under General Plan buildout conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a determination that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is unavailable. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that landfills serving the City have adequate capacity and that City programs satisfy state solid waste diversion requirements. The proposed project would generate solid waste consistent with prior assumptions and would continue to be served

44 under the City’s exclusive service agreement. Landfills serving the region maintain substantial remaining permitted capacity, and the project would generate a negligible daily tonnage relative to available capacity. The project must also comply with applicable state and local solid waste reduction and recycling regulations, including mandatory commercial recycling requirements. Accordingly, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of capacity, nor would it conflict with federal, state, or local solid waste regulations.

Conclusion
The proposed project remains consistent with the land use assumptions evaluated in the 2016 Final SEIR and subsequent Addenda. Existing and planned infrastructure, including water supply, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, solid waste systems, energy, and telecommunications, is adequate to serve the project without requiring construction of new or expanded facilities that would result in environmental effects not previously disclosed.

Required conservation and waste reduction regulations would continue to apply. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe utilities or service systems impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

45 4.18 Wildfire

Page 177 ends

b. Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?

Page 177 ends

c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?

Page 177 ends

d. Expose people or structures
to significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage
changes?

Page 177 ends

If located in or near areas or lands classified in the City of Camarillo’s General Plan Safety Element as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

46 c. Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The 2016 Final SEIR predates the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G wildfire checklist revisions and therefore does not evaluate the standalone wildfire thresholds now required under CEQA.

However, Section 5(g) of the 2016 Final SEIR, Impacts Found to Be Less Than Significant, addresses wildland fire hazards and concluded that the Project Site is located within an urbanized area, lacks adjacency to wildlands, and does not present a substantial wildfire hazard risk. Those conditions remain unchanged. The Project Site does not introduce new land uses, infrastructure, or conditions that would materially alter wildfire risk relative to what was considered in the certified 2016 Final SEIR.

The Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated in the City of Camarillo General Plan Safety Element. The site is bounded by U.S. 101 to the north, the Camarillo Airport and Camarillo Hills Drain to the south, existing transportation infrastructure to the east, and developed industrial uses to the west. There are no adjacent wildland areas capable of supporting significant wildfire spread to or from the Project Site.

Water supply for fire protection has been demonstrated to be adequate pursuant to the January 2024 Water Report (Appendix H), which confirms compliance with City of Camarillo and Ventura County Fire Protection District fire flow standards, hydrant spacing, and system sizing. Final development plans remain subject to Fire Department review to ensure compliance with applicable fire and building code requirements.

Conclusion
The Project Site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, is situated within an urbanized setting with no adjacent wildlands, and is supported by adequate fire protection infrastructure. The Project would not impair emergency evacuation, exacerbate wildfire risk, require wildfire-hazard-inducing infrastructure, or expose persons or structures to wildfire- related secondary hazards. The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than those acknowledged in the 2016 Final SEIR. Accordingly, the Project would result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wildfire beyond those identified in the 2016 Final SEIR.

47 4.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Where was
Impact
Analyzed in
the 2016
Final SEIR?
Do
Proposed
Changes
Require
Major
Revisions
to the
2016 Final
SEIR?
Do New
Circumstances
Require Major
Revisions to
the 2016 Final
SEIR?
Any New
Information
Resulting in
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Do 2016
Final SEIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
and/or
Resolve
Impacts?
a. Does the project have the
potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal
community, substantially
reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important
examples of the major
periods of California history
or prehistory?
N/A No No No Yes
b. Does the project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a
project are considerable
when viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
N/A No No No N/A
c. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A No No No Yes
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or

48 animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The 2016 Final SEIR concluded that the 2016 Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate plant or animal communities; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, with implementation of identified mitigation measures. As discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.18 of this Addendum, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe environmental effects than those previously analyzed. The Springville Component does not alter environmental conditions in a manner that would introduce new or different biological, cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resource impacts beyond those previously considered. Therefore, the proposed Springville Component would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or significantly affect biological or cultural resources.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? The 2016 Final SEIR evaluated cumulative environmental conditions in the region and determined that cumulative impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable mitigation measures. As demonstrated throughout this Addendum, the Springville Component would result in fewer or similar levels of development intensity compared to the 2016 Project and would not introduce new or more severe environmental effects. Further, review of development and infrastructure activity in the vicinity confirms that no new reasonably foreseeable projects have been identified that were not previously considered in the cumulative analysis of the 2016 Final SEIR. Therefore, the Springville Component would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative environmental impact.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The 2016 Final SEIR determined that potential effects to human beings, whether direct or indirect, would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures addressing air quality, hazards, noise, traffic, and public services. As described throughout this Addendum, the Springville Component would not result in new or more severe impacts affecting human health and safety. Applicable mitigation measures from the 2016 Final SEIR remain in effect, including measures addressing air pollutant emissions, biological resources, archaeological and tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, and other human-

49 health related issues. These measures will continue to avoid or reduce any potential adverse effects on human beings.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis contained in this Addendum, together with the previously certified 2016 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and the approved 2023 and 2024 Addenda, the Reduced Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No substantial changes to the project, no substantial changes in circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance exist that would require major revisions to the 2016 Final SEIR or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164.

The Reduced Project does not introduce residential uses, would not induce unplanned population growth, and would not alter emergency response conditions or wildfire exposure relative to the prior analyses. The Project remains supported by previously evaluated infrastructure and applicable mitigation measures. Where previously adopted mitigation measures remain applicable, such measures continue to apply to the Reduced Project unless expressly superseded herein.

Accordingly, the Reduced Project would not result in (1) a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly; (2) any significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; or (3) any significant cumulative impacts beyond those previously evaluated. As documented in this Addendum and the incorporated Prior CEQA Documents, environmental effects would remain no impact, less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation, and no new mitigation measures are required. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required, and this Addendum satisfies the requirements of CEQA for the Reduced Project.

50 5. REFERENCES
• City of Camarillo. 2011. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2010-2; SCH No. 2010081043) for Springville Auto Center & Industrial Business Park. • City of Camarillo. 2016. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR 2014-08) for Springville Auto Center & Industrial Business Park.
• City of Camarillo. 2023. Addendum to the 2016 Final SEIR for the Project Site (City Council action, October 2023).
• City of Camarillo. 2024. Addendum to the 2016 Final SEIR for the Project Site (City Council action, March 2024).
• California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), including sections 15150, 15162, and 15164, and Appendix G.

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
1 / 99
Envision Autocenter Detailed 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

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
2 / 99

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2027) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2030) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2030) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2030) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2030) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
3 / 99

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
4 / 99

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

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

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
5 / 99

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

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

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
6 / 99

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
7 / 99

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
8 / 99

6.4.1. Flooding

6.4.2. Temperature and Extreme Heat

6.4.3. Extreme Precipitation

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
9 / 99

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Envision Autocenter
Construction Start Date 9/1/2026
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency City of Camarillo
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.7
Precipitation (days) 21
Location 34.21888813698922, -119.08886741383608
County Ventura
City Camarillo
Air District Ventura County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3439
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.35

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
User Defined Retail 184 User Defined Unit 13 183,600 57,400 — — Auto dealership and service
center

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
10 / 99
Industrial Park 477 1000sqft 30 476,550 276,131 — — Future research and de
velopment
warehouse/factory
uses
User Defined
Commercial

4.6 User Defined Unit 2.3 4,625 37,820 — — Commercial
carwash
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

1.9 Acre 1.9 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-3 Use Local Construction Contractors
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-6 Use Diesel Particulate Filters
Construction C-8 Use Renewable Diesel
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Transportation T-11* Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool Transportation T-14* Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Transportation T-34* Provide Bike Parking
Transportation T-38* Provide First and Last Mile TNC Incentives Transportation T-42* Implement Telecommute and/or Alternative Work Schedule Progr
am
Transportation T-43* Provide Real-Time Transit Information Transportation T-53* Electrify Loading Docks
Energy E-7* Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting Energy E-9* Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System
Energy E-11 Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon Intensity Power Supply Energy E-15 Require All-Electric Development
Energy E-25* Install Electric Heat Pumps

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
11 / 99
Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
Waste S-4* Recycle Demolished Construction Material
Refrigerants R-5 Reduce Service Leak Emissions
Refrigerants R-6 Reduce Operational Leak Emissions
Refrigerants R-7* Reduce Disposal Emissions
Natural Lands N-2 Expand Urban Tree Planting
Miscellaneous M-4* Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

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. 57 57 41 67 0.18 0.36 26 26 0.36 12 12 — 24,855 24,855 0.70 2.9 40 25,782 Mit. 57 57 41 67 0.18 0.36 10 11 0.36 4.1 4.4 — 24,855 24,855 0.70 2.9 40 25,782 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 59% 59% — 65% 63% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.6 2.1 64 79 0.26 0.56 36 36 0.56 15 16 — 33,472 33,472 1.0 3.3 1.2 34,472 Mit. 2.6 2.1 64 79 0.26 0.56 14 14 0.56 5.2 5.8 — 33,472 33,472 1.0 3.3 1.2 34,472 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 62% 61% — 66% 64% — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
12 / 99
——————————————————Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 8.7 8.7 14 27 0.05 0.14 5.3 5.5 0.12 2.3 2.4 — 7,536 7,536 0.20 0.52 6.4 7,682 Mit. 8.7 8.7 14 27 0.05 0.14 3.7 3.8 0.12 0.92 1.0 — 7,536 7,536 0.20 0.52 6.4 7,682 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 31% 31% — 59% 56% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.6 1.6 2.6 4.9 0.01 0.02 0.97 1.00 0.02 0.42 0.43 — 1,248 1,248 0.03 0.09 1.1 1,272 Mit. 1.6 1.6 2.6 4.9 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.02 0.17 0.19 — 1,248 1,248 0.03 0.09 1.1 1,272 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 31% 31% — 59% 56% — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 25 25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18,120
Unmit. — Y es Y es — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Mit. — Y es Y es — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Exceeds
(Av
erage
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 25 25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18,120
Unmit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
Mit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 4.6 4.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No
Mit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — No

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
13 / 99

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 1.6 1.2 41 42 0.18 0.36 26 26 0.36 12 12 — 24,855 24,855 0.70 2.9 40 25,782 2027 2.6 2.3 35 67 0.12 0.34 14 15 0.31 4.9 5.2 — 17,577 17,577 0.50 0.96 24 17,899 2028 1.5 1.4 13 29 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,850 8,850 0.18 0.60 17 9,050 2029 1.4 1.4 13 28 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,705 8,705 0.18 0.60 15 8,903 2030 57 57 7.3 11 0.01 0.09 0.68 0.75 0.08 0.16 0.22 — 1,694 1,694 0.06 0.03 1.7 1,702 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.6 2.1 64 79 0.26 0.56 36 36 0.56 15 16 — 33,472 33,472 1.0 3.3 1.2 34,472 2027 1.6 1.4 22 37 0.07 0.20 10.0 10 0.20 3.8 4.0 — 8,841 8,841 0.31 0.63 0.50 9,034 2028 1.5 1.4 14 28 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,706 8,706 0.19 0.61 0.45 8,892 2029 1.4 1.2 13 27 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,564 8,564 0.18 0.61 0.40 8,750 2030 1.4 1.3 7.3 11 0.01 0.09 0.20 0.28 0.08 0.05 0.13 — 1,686 1,686 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,693 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.38 0.30 9.4 11 0.04 0.08 5.2 5.3 0.08 2.3 2.4 — 4,939 4,939 0.15 0.49 2.9 5,091 2027 1.2 1.1 14 27 0.05 0.14 5.3 5.5 0.12 1.7 1.8 — 7,536 7,536 0.20 0.46 5.3 7,682 2028 1.3 1.2 12 24 0.04 0.10 3.7 3.8 0.09 0.90 0.99 — 7,502 7,502 0.16 0.52 6.4 7,666 2029 0.79 0.68 7.3 15 0.03 0.06 2.4 2.4 0.06 0.58 0.64 — 4,758 4,758 0.10 0.33 3.7 4,863 2030 8.7 8.7 1.5 2.4 < 0.005 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 406 406 0.01 0.01 0.14 409 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.07 0.05 1.7 2.1 0.01 0.02 0.95 0.97 0.01 0.42 0.43 — 818 818 0.02 0.08 0.48 843 2027 0.22 0.19 2.6 4.9 0.01 0.02 0.97 1.00 0.02 0.31 0.33 — 1,248 1,248 0.03 0.08 0.87 1,272 2028 0.23 0.22 2.1 4.3 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.02 0.16 0.18 — 1,242 1,242 0.03 0.09 1.1 1,269

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
14 / 99
2029 0.14 0.12 1.3 2.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 788 788 0.02 0.06 0.61 805 2030 1.6 1.6 0.28 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 67 67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 68

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
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 1.6 1.2 41 42 0.18 0.36 10 11 0.36 4.1 4.4 — 24,855 24,855 0.70 2.9 40 25,782 2027 2.6 2.3 35 67 0.12 0.34 7.5 7.8 0.31 2.2 2.5 — 17,577 17,577 0.50 0.96 24 17,899 2028 1.5 1.4 13 29 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,850 8,850 0.18 0.60 17 9,050 2029 1.4 1.4 13 28 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,705 8,705 0.18 0.60 15 8,903 2030 57 57 7.3 11 0.01 0.09 0.68 0.75 0.08 0.16 0.22 — 1,694 1,694 0.06 0.03 1.7 1,702 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.6 2.1 64 79 0.26 0.56 14 14 0.56 5.2 5.8 — 33,472 33,472 1.0 3.3 1.2 34,472 2027 1.6 1.4 22 37 0.07 0.20 4.3 4.5 0.20 1.1 1.3 — 8,841 8,841 0.31 0.63 0.50 9,034 2028 1.5 1.4 14 28 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,706 8,706 0.19 0.61 0.45 8,892 2029 1.4 1.2 13 27 0.05 0.11 4.3 4.4 0.11 1.1 1.2 — 8,564 8,564 0.18 0.61 0.40 8,750 2030 1.4 1.3 7.3 11 0.01 0.09 0.20 0.28 0.08 0.05 0.13 — 1,686 1,686 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,693 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.38 0.30 9.4 11 0.04 0.08 2.0 2.1 0.08 0.77 0.85 — 4,939 4,939 0.15 0.49 2.9 5,091 2027 1.2 1.1 14 27 0.05 0.14 3.3 3.5 0.12 0.92 1.0 — 7,536 7,536 0.20 0.46 5.3 7,682 2028 1.3 1.2 12 24 0.04 0.10 3.7 3.8 0.09 0.90 0.99 — 7,502 7,502 0.16 0.52 6.4 7,666 2029 0.79 0.68 7.3 15 0.03 0.06 2.4 2.4 0.06 0.58 0.64 — 4,758 4,758 0.10 0.33 3.7 4,863 2030 8.7 8.7 1.5 2.4 < 0.005 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 406 406 0.01 0.01 0.14 409 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
15 / 99
2026 0.07 0.05 1.7 2.1 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.38 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 818 818 0.02 0.08 0.48 843 2027 0.22 0.19 2.6 4.9 0.01 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.17 0.19 — 1,248 1,248 0.03 0.08 0.87 1,272 2028 0.23 0.22 2.1 4.3 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.02 0.16 0.18 — 1,242 1,242 0.03 0.09 1.1 1,269 2029 0.14 0.12 1.3 2.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 788 788 0.02 0.06 0.61 805 2030 1.6 1.6 0.28 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 67 67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 68

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. 28 27 9.8 89 0.19 0.36 14 14 0.38 3.6 4.0 736 31,082 31,819 76 1.4 223 34,359 Mit. 28 27 9.7 89 0.20 0.34 14 14 0.37 3.6 3.9 401 30,931 31,331 43 1.3 137 32,928 %
Reduced
— < 0.5% < 0.5% — -5% 7% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% 46% < 0.5% 2% 44% 4% 38% 4% Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 23 22 10 59 0.18 0.31 14 14 0.34 3.6 3.9 736 30,446 31,183 76 1.4 173 33,686 Mit. 23 22 10 59 0.19 0.29 14 14 0.33 3.6 3.9 401 30,295 30,695 43 1.4 87 32,255 %
Reduced
— < 0.5% < 0.5% — -6% 8% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% 46% < 0.5% 2% 44% 4% 50% 4% Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 25 24 9.4 65 0.17 0.32 12 12 0.35 3.1 3.4 736 28,749 29,486 76 1.3 191 31,979 Mit. 25 24 9.4 65 0.18 0.30 12 12 0.34 3.1 3.4 401 28,598 28,998 43 1.3 105 30,547 %
Reduced
— < 0.5% < 0.5% — -6% 8% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% 46% 1% 2% 44% 4% 45% 4% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
16 / 99
Unmit. 4.5 4.3 1.7 12 0.03 0.06 2.2 2.3 0.06 0.56 0.63 122 4,760 4,882 13 0.22 32 5,294 Mit. 4.5 4.3 1.7 12 0.03 0.05 2.2 2.3 0.06 0.56 0.62 66 4,735 4,801 7.1 0.21 17 5,057 %
Reduced
— < 0.5% < 0.5% — -6% 8% < 0.5% < 0.5% 2% < 0.5% < 0.5% 46% 1% 2% 44% 4% 45% 4% Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 25 25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18,120
Unmit. — Y es No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Mit. — Y es No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Exceeds
(Av
erage
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 25 25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18,120
Unmit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Mit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Exceeds
(Annual)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 4.6 4.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3,000
Unmit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es
Mit. — No No — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Y es

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 7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
17 / 99
Area 20 20 0.24 29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 119 119 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 119 Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 254 881 1,135 26 0.63 — 1,977 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 482 0.00 482 48 0.00 — 1,687 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Vegetati
on
— -0.03 -0.04 — 0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.10 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 — -352 -352 — — — -352 Total 28 27 9.8 89 0.19 0.36 14 14 0.38 3.6 4.0 736 31,082 31,819 76 1.4 223 34,359 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.6 7.0 6.9 56 0.14 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,556 14,556 0.61 0.64 1.3 14,764 Area 15 15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 254 881 1,135 26 0.63 — 1,977 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 482 0.00 482 48 0.00 — 1,687 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Vegetati
on
— -0.03 -0.04 — 0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.10 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 — -352 -352 — — — -352 Total 23 22 10 59 0.18 0.31 14 14 0.34 3.6 3.9 736 30,446 31,183 76 1.4 173 33,686 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.6 6.1 5.9 48 0.13 0.09 12 12 0.08 3.1 3.2 — 12,800 12,800 0.52 0.55 19 12,997 Area 18 17 0.12 14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 59 59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59 Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 254 881 1,135 26 0.63 — 1,977 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 482 0.00 482 48 0.00 — 1,687 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 172
Vegetati
on
— -0.03 -0.04 — 0.02 -0.05 -0.05 -0.10 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 — -352 -352 — — — -352 Total 25 24 9.4 65 0.17 0.32 12 12 0.35 3.1 3.4 736 28,749 29,486 76 1.3 191 31,979

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
18 / 99
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.2 1.1 1.1 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.2 2.2 0.02 0.57 0.58 — 2,119 2,119 0.09 0.09 3.2 2,152 Area 3.2 3.2 0.02 2.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.7 9.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.7 Energy 0.07 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,543 2,543 0.24 0.02 — 2,556 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 42 146 188 4.3 0.10 — 327
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 80 0.00 80 8.0 0.00 — 279
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28 28
Vegetati
on
— -0.01 -0.01 — < 0.005 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 > -0.005 > -0.005 > -0.005 — -58 -58 — — — -58 Total 4.5 4.3 1.7 12 0.03 0.06 2.2 2.3 0.06 0.56 0.63 122 4,760 4,882 13 0.22 32 5,294

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
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 7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318 Area 20 20 0.24 29 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 119 119 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 119 Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 232 792 1,024 24 0.57 — 1,791 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 169 0.00 169 17 0.00 — 590
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 86 86
Vegetati
on
— -0.05 -0.06 — 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 — -414 -414 — — — -414 Total 28 27 9.7 89 0.20 0.34 14 14 0.37 3.6 3.9 401 30,931 31,331 43 1.3 137 32,928 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.6 7.0 6.9 56 0.14 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,556 14,556 0.61 0.64 1.3 14,764

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
19 / 99
Area 15 15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 232 792 1,024 24 0.57 — 1,791 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 169 0.00 169 17 0.00 — 590
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 86 86
Vegetati
on
— -0.05 -0.06 — 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 — -414 -414 — — — -414 Total 23 22 10 59 0.19 0.29 14 14 0.33 3.6 3.9 401 30,295 30,695 43 1.4 87 32,255 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 6.6 6.1 5.9 48 0.13 0.09 12 12 0.08 3.1 3.2 — 12,800 12,800 0.52 0.55 19 12,997 Area 18 17 0.12 14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 59 59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 59 Energy 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 15,361 15,361 1.4 0.14 — 15,438 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 232 792 1,024 24 0.57 — 1,791 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 169 0.00 169 17 0.00 — 590
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 86 86
Vegetati
on
— -0.05 -0.06 — 0.03 -0.07 -0.07 -0.15 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 — -414 -414 — — — -414 Total 25 24 9.4 65 0.18 0.30 12 12 0.34 3.1 3.4 401 28,598 28,998 43 1.3 105 30,547 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.2 1.1 1.1 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.2 2.2 0.02 0.57 0.58 — 2,119 2,119 0.09 0.09 3.2 2,152 Area 3.2 3.2 0.02 2.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.7 9.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.7 Energy 0.07 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 2,543 2,543 0.24 0.02 — 2,556 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 38 131 169 3.9 0.09 — 296
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 28 0.00 28 2.8 0.00 — 98
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14 14
Vegetati
on
— -0.01 -0.01 — 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 > -0.005 > -0.005 -0.01 — -69 -69 — — — -69 Total 4.5 4.3 1.7 12 0.03 0.05 2.2 2.3 0.06 0.56 0.62 66 4,735 4,801 7.1 0.21 17 5,057

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
20 / 99

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 18 35 0.06 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 — 6,718 6,718 0.27 0.05 — 6,741 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 21 21 — 10 10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.80 0.80 18 35 0.06 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 — 6,718 6,718 0.27 0.05 — 6,741 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 21 21 — 10 10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
21 / 99
1,016—0.010.041,0121,012—0.02—0.020.02—0.020.015.32.70.120.12Off-Roa d
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 3.1 3.1 — 1.5 1.5 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.50 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.57 0.57 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 262 262 < 0.005 0.01 0.98 266 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 0.73 0.28 23 5.8 0.12 0.23 4.8 5.0 0.23 1.3 1.6 — 17,874 17,874 0.42 2.9 39 18,774 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.10 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 254 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 0.71 0.27 24 5.8 0.12 0.23 4.8 5.0 0.23 1.3 1.6 — 17,880 17,880 0.42 2.9 1.0 18,742 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 39

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
22 / 99
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 0.11 0.04 3.6 0.87 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.23 — 2,694 2,694 0.06 0.43 2.5 2,826 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.3 6.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.4 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 0.02 0.01 0.66 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 446 446 0.01 0.07 0.42 468

3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 5.3 5.3 — 2.7 2.7 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 18 35 0.06 0.13 — 0.13 0.13 — 0.13 — 6,718 6,718 0.27 0.05 — 6,741 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 5.3 5.3 — 2.7 2.7 — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
23 / 99
6,741—0.050.276,7186,718—0.13—0.130.13—0.130.0635180.800.80Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.81 0.81 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.12 2.7 5.3 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,012 1,012 0.04 0.01 — 1,016 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.50 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 168 168 0.01 < 0.005 — 168 Onsite
truc
k

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
24 / 99
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.10 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 254 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 0.71 0.27 24 5.8 0.12 0.23 4.8 5.0 0.23 1.3 1.6 — 17,880 17,880 0.42 2.9 1.0 18,742 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 39 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 0.11 0.04 3.6 0.87 0.02 0.03 0.71 0.75 0.03 0.20 0.23 — 2,694 2,694 0.06 0.43 2.5 2,826 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.3 6.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.4 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 0.02 0.01 0.66 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 446 446 0.01 0.07 0.42 468

3.3. 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 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
25 / 99
———————3.73.7—9.29.2——————Dust
From
Mater
ial
Mov
ement
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.11 0.11 2.7 4.9 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 914 914 0.04 0.01 — 917 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 1.3 1.3 — 0.51 0.51 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.49 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 151 151 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
26 / 99
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 0.07 0.03 2.4 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,775 1,775 0.04 0.28 0.10 1,860 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35 35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 35 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.33 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 246 246 0.01 0.04 0.23 258 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.8 5.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.9 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41 41 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 43

3.4. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.4 2.4 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 19 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
27 / 99
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.33 0.33 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.11 2.7 4.9 0.01 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 914 914 0.04 0.01 — 917 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.49 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 151 151 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.08 0.10 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 254 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 0.07 0.03 2.4 0.58 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,775 1,775 0.04 0.28 0.10 1,860 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35 35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 35

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
28 / 99
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 0.01 < 0.005 0.33 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 246 246 0.01 0.04 0.23 258 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.8 5.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.9 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41 41 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 43

3.5. Grading (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

0.80 0.80 19 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 9.2 9.2 — 3.7 3.7 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.80 0.80 19 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
29 / 99
———————3.73.7—9.29.2——————Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.23 0.23 5.7 10 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,921 1,921 0.08 0.02 — 1,928 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.7 2.7 — 1.1 1.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.04 0.04 1.0 1.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 318 318 0.01 < 0.005 — 319 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.49 0.49 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 258 258 < 0.005 0.01 0.89 261 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 0.07 0.03 2.2 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,734 1,734 0.04 0.27 3.5 1,819

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
30 / 99
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 246 246 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 249 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 0.07 0.03 2.3 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,734 1,734 0.04 0.27 0.09 1,816 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 72 72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 73 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 0.02 0.01 0.67 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 505 505 0.01 0.08 0.45 529 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 84 84 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 88

3.6. Grading (2027) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.4 2.4 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 19 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
31 / 99

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 2.4 2.4 — 0.95 0.95 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.80 0.80 19 35 0.06 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.70 0.70 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.23 5.7 10 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,921 1,921 0.08 0.02 — 1,928 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.13 0.13 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 1.0 1.9 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 318 318 0.01 < 0.005 — 319 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
32 / 99
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 258 258 < 0.005 0.01 0.89 261 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 0.07 0.03 2.2 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,734 1,734 0.04 0.27 3.5 1,819 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 246 246 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 249 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 0.07 0.03 2.3 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.16 — 1,734 1,734 0.04 0.27 0.09 1,816 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 72 72 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 73 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 0.02 0.01 0.67 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 505 505 0.01 0.08 0.45 529 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12 12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 84 84 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 88

3.7. 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
33 / 99
2,405—0.020.102,3972,397—0.08—0.080.09—0.090.02148.70.320.32Off-Roa d
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.18 0.18 5.0 8.1 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,362 1,362 0.06 0.01 — 1,367 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.91 1.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 226 226 0.01 < 0.005 — 226 Onsite
truc
k

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
34 / 99
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.1 1.0 1.2 13 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,205 3,205 0.05 0.13 0.30 3,245 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.9 1.2 0.02 0.05 0.93 0.98 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,239 3,239 0.04 0.48 0.20 3,384 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 0.65 0.57 0.65 7.4 0.00 0.00 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 1,835 1,835 0.03 0.07 2.8 1,860 Vendor 0.08 0.04 2.2 0.69 0.01 0.03 0.52 0.55 0.01 0.14 0.16 — 1,840 1,840 0.02 0.27 1.8 1,924 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 0.12 0.10 0.12 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 304 304 < 0.005 0.01 0.47 308 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.41 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 305 305 < 0.005 0.05 0.31 319 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

3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
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

0.32 0.32 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
35 / 99
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.32 0.32 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.18 0.18 5.0 8.1 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,362 1,362 0.06 0.01 — 1,367 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.91 1.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 226 226 0.01 < 0.005 — 226 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.2 1.0 1.0 14 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,353 3,353 0.05 0.12 12 3,402 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.8 1.2 0.02 0.05 0.93 0.98 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,238 3,238 0.04 0.48 7.5 3,390 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 1.1 1.0 1.2 13 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,205 3,205 0.05 0.13 0.30 3,245 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.9 1.2 0.02 0.05 0.93 0.98 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,239 3,239 0.04 0.48 0.20 3,384 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
36 / 99
Worker 0.65 0.57 0.65 7.4 0.00 0.00 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.45 0.45 — 1,835 1,835 0.03 0.07 2.8 1,860 Vendor 0.08 0.04 2.2 0.69 0.01 0.03 0.52 0.55 0.01 0.14 0.16 — 1,840 1,840 0.02 0.27 1.8 1,924 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 0.12 0.10 0.12 1.3 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 304 304 < 0.005 0.01 0.47 308 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.41 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 305 305 < 0.005 0.05 0.31 319 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 (2028) - 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

0.32 0.32 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
37 / 99
2,068—0.020.082,0612,061—0.07—0.070.07—0.070.02127.50.270.27Off-Roa d
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.05 0.05 1.4 2.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 341 341 0.01 < 0.005 — 342 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.0 0.99 0.90 13 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,292 3,292 0.04 0.12 10 3,340 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.6 1.2 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,160 3,160 0.04 0.46 6.7 3,304 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 1.0 0.98 1.0 12 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,147 3,147 0.05 0.13 0.27 3,187 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.7 1.2 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,162 3,162 0.04 0.46 0.17 3,299 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 0.86 0.85 0.88 10 0.00 0.00 2.9 2.9 0.00 0.68 0.68 — 2,724 2,724 0.04 0.11 3.9 2,761 Vendor 0.12 0.06 3.2 1.0 0.02 0.02 0.79 0.81 0.02 0.22 0.24 — 2,717 2,717 0.03 0.39 2.5 2,837 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 0.16 0.15 0.16 1.9 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 451 451 0.01 0.02 0.64 457 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.58 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 450 450 0.01 0.07 0.41 470

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
38 / 99
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

3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
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

0.32 0.32 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.27 0.27 7.5 12 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,061 2,061 0.08 0.02 — 2,068 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
39 / 99
342—< 0.0050.01341341—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0052.21.40.050.05Off-Roa d
Equipm
Onsite
truc
k

3.11. Building Construction (2029) - 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

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
40 / 99
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.32 0.32 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.18 0.18 4.8 7.9 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,328 1,328 0.05 0.01 — 1,333 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.88 1.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
41 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.98 0.96 0.79 13 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,235 3,235 0.04 0.12 9.4 3,282 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.4 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,073 3,073 0.04 0.46 5.9 3,216 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 0.98 0.85 1.0 11 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,092 3,092 0.05 0.13 0.24 3,132 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.6 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,075 3,075 0.04 0.46 0.15 3,212 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 0.53 0.46 0.51 6.3 0.00 0.00 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,726 1,726 0.03 0.07 2.3 1,749 Vendor 0.08 0.04 2.0 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 1,704 1,704 0.02 0.25 1.4 1,781 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 0.10 0.08 0.09 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 286 286 < 0.005 0.01 0.37 290 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 282 282 < 0.005 0.04 0.23 295 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

3.12. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
42 / 99
2,405—0.020.102,3972,397—0.08—0.080.09—0.090.02148.70.320.32Off-Roa d
Equipm
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 8.7 14 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.18 0.18 4.8 7.9 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,328 1,328 0.05 0.01 — 1,333 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.88 1.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.98 0.96 0.79 13 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,235 3,235 0.04 0.12 9.4 3,282 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.4 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,073 3,073 0.04 0.46 5.9 3,216 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

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
43 / 99
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.98 0.85 1.0 11 0.00 0.00 3.4 3.4 0.00 0.80 0.80 — 3,092 3,092 0.05 0.13 0.24 3,132 Vendor 0.14 0.07 3.6 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.93 0.96 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,075 3,075 0.04 0.46 0.15 3,212 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 0.53 0.46 0.51 6.3 0.00 0.00 1.9 1.9 0.00 0.44 0.44 — 1,726 1,726 0.03 0.07 2.3 1,749 Vendor 0.08 0.04 2.0 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.52 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 1,704 1,704 0.02 0.25 1.4 1,781 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 0.10 0.08 0.09 1.2 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 286 286 < 0.005 0.01 0.37 290 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.36 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 282 282 < 0.005 0.04 0.23 295 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. Paving (2030) - 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 7.2 11 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 1.1 1.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
44 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.23 7.2 11 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 1.1 1.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.03 0.03 1.1 1.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 228 228 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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

0.01 0.01 0.20 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 183 183 < 0.005 0.01 0.48 186 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

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
45 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 175 175 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 177 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 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.4 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.5 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

3.14. Paving (2030) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 1.1 1.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.23 7.2 11 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
46 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Paving 1.1 1.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.23 0.23 7.2 11 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.16 0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 1.1 1.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 228 228 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.20 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38 Onsite
truc
k

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
47 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 175 175 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 177 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 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.4 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.5 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

3.15. Architectural Coating (2030) - 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

0.06 0.06 2.7 2.8 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 395 395 0.02 < 0.005 — 397 Architect
ural
Coating
s
56 56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
48 / 99

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.40 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60 60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60 Architect
ural
Coating
s

8.5 8.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.9 9.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.9 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.6 1.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
49 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92 92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 94 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 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15 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

3.16. Architectural Coating (2030) - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
56 56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 2.7 2.8 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 395 395 0.02 < 0.005 — 397 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
50 / 99
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

8.5 8.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.40 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 60 60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 60 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.6 1.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.9 9.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.9 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.19 0.16 0.16 2.4 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 636 636 0.01 0.02 1.7 645 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 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92 92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 94

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
51 / 99
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 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15 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

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
52 / 99
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

7.6 7.0 6.9 56 0.14 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,556 14,556 0.61 0.64 1.3 14,764 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.6 7.0 6.9 56 0.14 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,556 14,556 0.61 0.64 1.3 14,764 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

1.2 1.1 1.1 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.2 2.2 0.02 0.57 0.58 — 2,119 2,119 0.09 0.09 3.2 2,152 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.2 1.1 1.1 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.2 2.2 0.02 0.57 0.58 — 2,119 2,119 0.09 0.09 3.2 2,152

4.1.2. Mitigated
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

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
53 / 99
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 7.7 7.1 6.2 57 0.15 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 15,073 15,073 0.57 0.60 51 15,318 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

7.6 7.0 6.9 56 0.14 0.10 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,556 14,556 0.61 0.64 1.3 14,764 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
54 / 99
2,1523.20.090.092,1192,119—0.580.570.022.22.20.020.028.81.11.11.2Industria l
User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.2 1.1 1.1 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.2 2.2 0.02 0.57 0.58 — 2,119 2,119 0.09 0.09 3.2 2,152

4.2. Energy

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,222 3,222 0.31 0.04 — 3,240
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,986 7,986 0.76 0.09 — 8,032
User
Defined
Commercial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 99 99 0.01 < 0.005 — 99
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,306 11,306 1.1 0.13 — 11,372 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
55 / 99
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,222 3,222 0.31 0.04 — 3,240
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,986 7,986 0.76 0.09 — 8,032
User
Defined
Commercial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 99 99 0.01 < 0.005 — 99
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,306 11,306 1.1 0.13 — 11,372 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 533 533 0.05 0.01 — 536
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,322 1,322 0.13 0.02 — 1,330
User
Defined
Commercial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 16 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,872 1,872 0.18 0.02 — 1,883

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
56 / 99
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,222 3,222 0.31 0.04 — 3,240
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,986 7,986 0.76 0.09 — 8,032
User
Defined
Commercial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 99 99 0.01 < 0.005 — 99
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,306 11,306 1.1 0.13 — 11,372 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3,222 3,222 0.31 0.04 — 3,240
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7,986 7,986 0.76 0.09 — 8,032
User
Defined
Commercial
— — — — — — — — — — — — 99 99 0.01 < 0.005 — 99
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,306 11,306 1.1 0.13 — 11,372 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 533 533 0.05 0.01 — 536
Industria
l
Par
k
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,322 1,322 0.13 0.02 — 1,330

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
57 / 99
16—< 0.005< 0.0051616————————————User
Defined
Commercial
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,872 1,872 0.18 0.02 — 1,883

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 4,055 4,055 0.36 0.01 — 4,066 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 4,055 4,055 0.36 0.01 — 4,066 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
58 / 99
4,066—0.010.364,0554,055—0.26—0.260.26—0.260.022.93.40.190.37Industria l
Park
User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.37 0.19 3.4 2.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.26 — 0.26 — 4,055 4,055 0.36 0.01 — 4,066 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Industria
l
Par
k

0.07 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673 User
Defined
Commercial

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.07 0.03 0.62 0.52 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 671 671 0.06 < 0.005 — 673

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Retail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

EXHIBIT A

Envision Autocenter Detailed Report, 12/22/2025
59 / 99
Industria
Par
k