CA Review CDS
Meeting Date: July 29, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager
Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner
[email protected], 442-339-2611
Subject: The Roosevelt Site Development Plan (SDP 2024-0001 / DEV2024-0001) District: 1
Rec
ommended Action
1) Hold a public hearing; and
2) Adopt a resolution approving a California Environmental Quality Act exemption determination and approving a site development plan to demolish an existing two-story commercial structure and construct a four-story mixed-use structure consisting of 5,406 square feet of commercial space, 23 multiple-family residential apartment units and 24 covered parking spaces on a 0.46-acre property located at 2621 Roosevelt Street in the northwest quadrant of the city, the Village & Barrio Master Plan area and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 (Exhibit 1).
Executive Summary
This project site development plan application proposes replacing an existing two-story commercial structure on a 0.46-acre lot at 2621 Roosevelt St. with a four-story mixed-use building consisting of 23 apartment units and 5,406 square feet of commercial space.
The developer is using state density bonus law, as detailed below, to increase the proposed project’s residential density by 100% of what is allowed under the Village & Barrio Master Plan.
As part of the state density bonus application, the applicant is seeking eight waivers from certain city development standards and objective design standards to accommodate the density increase.
For the reasons explained below, including recent state housing laws that preempt certain local land use controls, city staff and the Planning Commission have concluded that all required findings can be made to approve this request and are recommending approval of the project, consistent with local and state laws.
This item is being brought before the City Council because the property is subject to the Village & Barrio Master Plan, which requires City Council review and approval of any proposed structures over 5,000 square feet or projects with more than four dwelling units.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 1 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Explanation & Analysis
Project Description
The project site consists of a 0.46-acre lot on the west side of Roosevelt Street, south of Laguna Drive. The mid-block lot contains an existing two-story, 8,000-square-foot commercial office building and surface parking lot. The parcel is generally flat, sloping slightly toward Roosevelt Street. The subject site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including a trailer park, car wash, commercial building containing a restaurant and, across Roosevelt Street, multiple-family residential uses.
The proposed mixed-use development consists of:
• 5,406 square feet of commercial space that will be divided into five tenant spaces on the first floor (for a total of 3,975 square feet) and two office suites on the second floor, for a total of 1,434 square feet.
• 23 multiple-family residential apartment units located on the second, third, and fourth floors. Four of the 13 units on the third level have two-story floor plans. • 24 parking spaces, located within a ground floor parking garage, that are provided for the residential units. The project is not providing any parking spaces for the commercial or office spaces.
A complete summary of the proposed development and the zoning and master plan requirements for the project can be found in the Planning Commission staff report provided as Exhibit 3.
California Density Bonus Law
Definition
California’s Density Bonus Law gives a developer the legal right to increase the total number of homes allowed on a property above a city’s maximum limits by as much as 100% in exchange for making some of those units affordable to lower-income families. The law also allows developers to reduce or exceed city established development standards such as building setback requirements and building height limitations when those standards prevent them from achieving the increased density allowed under state density bonus law.
Application – De nsity increase
Under the city’s General Plan, the designation for this site is Village General, which allows residential use at a density of 23 dwelling units per acre. That allows for a maximum of 11 dwelling units on this 0.46-acre property. To be able to construct 23 units, the applicant is applying two 50% density bonuses, which allows for an additional 12 units.1 The two 50% density bonuses are achieved by designating at least 15% of the 11 base density units, or two units, as affordable to very low-income households,2 and at least 15% of the 11 base density units, again 1 “Base density” unit yields are calculated based on provisions in Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.53, under which dwelling units may be rounded up or down to the next whole number. However, in the context of state density bonus law, fractional units for “base density” and “total density” are rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, the proposed project’s “total density” is 23 dwelling units.
2 The U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development defines a very low-income household family as one whose income does not exceed 50% of the average area median income for the region and a moderate-income household as one whose income does not exceed 120% of the average area median income for the region. In 2024, HUD reported that the average area median income July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 2 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
two units, as affordable to moderate-income households. These four affordable units will have restrictions on the deed of the property requiring they continue to be priced as affordable units for a period of 55 years. The four deed-restricted affordable units also satisfy the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements, as discussed further below.
Application – Deviations From Development Standards
Projects proposing certain percentages of affordable units can request incentives or concessions from specific development standards, when modifying such standards would provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to provide for affordable housing costs and rents.
Developers can also have development standards waived or revised when such deviations are needed to achieve the density allowed under state law.
3 The application requests eight density bonus waivers from the Village & Bario Master Plan’s (VBMP) development standards and Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) development standards and two density bonus concessions:
Waivers
• Waiver of VBMP Standard 2.7.2(A)(1) requiring a front setback minimum of 5 feet; maximum of 10 feet to building. A front setback of 3 feet is proposed. • Waiver of VBMP Standard 2.7.2(G) limiting the maximum height of a building to 35 feet and 3 stories. A height of 45 feet and 4 stories is proposed. • Waiver of CMC 21.44.060(A)(3) (Table D) requiring enclosed parking garages with multiple, open parking spaces to maintain a standard stall size of 8.5 feet by 20 feet, exclusive of supporting columns or posts. 13 compact parking spaces, 8 feet by 15 feet, are proposed.
• Waiver of VMBP Appendix E, Table 3.1.4 prohibiting large-mixed use building types from the Village General Subdistrict. A large-mixed use building type is proposed. • Waiver of VBMP Appendix E, 2.6.2(A)(1) requiring fifty (50%) percent or more of the primary building’s floor area facing onto a primary and/or secondary street(s). Floor area facing an internal commercial courtyard is proposed.
• Waiver of VBMP Appendix E, 4.8(B)(3) requiring ground floor window frontage facade area to be a minimum of 75% transparency on primary frontage. The project is proposing 25% transparency.
• Waiver of VBMP Appendix E, 4.8(C)(2) requiring upper stories to occupy the full ground floor footprint area. A second story residential courtyard (common open space) is proposed.
for the San Diego County region is $119,500, so a very low-income family of four makes no more than $75,750 annually and a moderate-income family of four makes no more than $143,400 annually. 3 Refer to Exhibit 7 for an info-bulletin that provides more information on how the state density bonus law works and is applied in the City of Carlsbad.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 3 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
• Waiver of VBMP Appendix E, 5.8(B)(3) requiring shopfront facade area to be a minimum of 90% glazed transparent and clear. The applicant is proposing 25% transparency.
Concessions
• Concession to waive the requirement that the current six-inch water main water main servicing the property be replaced with an eight-inch water main. Following discussions with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, staff determined the existing six-inch water main will provide the water flow required to serve the proposed project. • Concession to waive all commercial parking requirements for the project. The Village & Barrio Master Plan standards require 17 parking spaces for the proposed commercial space and four spaces for the proposed office use. The applicant is using a concession to waive the 21 total spaces required by the master plan.
Carlsbad Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Definition
To help address the ongoing need for affordable housing, the city adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.85) in 1993 that established the legal basis for requiring affordable – or inclusionary – housing units in new residential development in the city. The law, which applies to all proposed development projects that include residential units, requires that at least 15% of the base density units within a project be affordable to lower- income households.
Application
In keeping with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base units, or two units, shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households (11 units X 15% = 2 units, 1.65 rounded up). The two very low-income units proposed to satisfy one of the requested state density bonus requirements also satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance’s requirements.
State Housing Laws And Limits To Local Control
Overview
Over the past decade, the California Legislature has amended state law to expand and strengthen measures intended to create more affordable housing, in recognition of the critically low volumes of housing stock across the state and the belief that local jurisdictions are not doing enough to address the need for more affordable housing. In response, most bills passed by the Legislature have made it easier and faster for housing projects to be approved while limiting a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of or make infeasible those housing projects. The specific housing laws that are being applied to the proposed development project and worth highlighting are:
State Density Bonus Law
As stated above, under state law projects that restrict a percentage of units as affordable are entitled to a density increase above a city’s maximums. Local jurisdictions cannot deny or limit the density increase, nor can the city require the applicant to submit an amendment to the city's General Plan to reflect the increase in housing units. This is a developer right under state law.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 4 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
The Density Bonus Law also allows applicants concessions or incentives from certain requirements and waivers of development standards. State law does give local cities the ability to deny waivers, but the findings are, by design, extremely difficult to make. • To deny a waiver, the city must identify a specific adverse impact on public health and safety and conclude that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact.
• An adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
This is a high bar to overcome, and both cities and community groups have previously tried to challenge such waivers, only to be denied in court. For example, in 2022, the state Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego that the developers of density bonus projects are entitled to waive development standards that would prevent the project from being built as designed – even if the project could be redesigned to comply with the relevant standards. In other words, the courts have held that a city cannot redesign a qualifying density bonus project on the theory that, if the project were configured differently, it would not need the requested waivers.
State Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, limits a local government’s decision-making authority over certain housing development projects. The legislature first enacted the act in 1982 and has amended the law over the years. It now involves a multitude of interconnected and overlapping Government Code sections. Many of the most significant amendments were added in the past seven years.
Most notably, the Housing Accountability Act states that when a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable general plan, zoning, subdivision standards, and objective design criteria that were in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, cities cannot disapprove the project or impose a condition requiring lower density unless the city finds, based on a preponderance of evidence, that:
• The project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, unless disapproved or approved at a lower density; and
• There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. For the proposed application, city staff found no “specific, adverse impact” that could not be mitigated or adequately addressed.
State H
ousing Crisis Act
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, commonly referred to as Senate Bill 330, amended the Housing Accountability Act, with several pro-housing provisions that further limited a city’s ability to deny an application for a housing project that meets established development requirements. The Housing Crisis Act also placed limits on permit processing. The law:
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 5 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
• Allows certain projects to establish vesting rights that limit the city to only applying those codes, requirements and fees that were in place at the time the application was filed • Shortened the timelines allowed to review applications • Limits the number of public meetings to five, which includes any required community meetings
• Requires that any new requirement established must be objective, meaning clear and measurable, or provides specific direction for how to apply requirements, criteria or standards
• Prohibits a city from “downzoning” properties, that is, reducing residential density, through land use designations or other development standards unless a city concurrently “upzones” another location to ensure there is no net loss in residential capacity • Prohibits a city from imposing housing caps or moratoriums on housing developments Planning Commission
The Planning Commission considered the project on April 2, 2025. Two speakers provided comments at the hearing. One expressed overall support for the project but raised some concerns regarding the choice of colors for the structure. The other, while not specifically advocating for the project to be revised or denied, voiced concerns about the lack of parking in Carlsbad Village in relation to projects not providing adequate on-site parking. Concerns over parking were also voiced through written correspondence received on the project. The following is a summary of these concerns, and the responses provided.
Colors
City codes and regulations do not include specific requirements for colors. This is due in part to state requirements that stipulate only objective standards be applied to housing projects, and any color or tone “guidelines” are not typically considered objective standards. Despite the city not having discretion over color choices, the applicant did acknowledge the residents’ concern and commented on how the color and material choices were made for the project. The applicant stated that the colors chosen are not meant to be stark tones, but also did not want to rely on muted colors such as white, cream and beige for the project. The applicant also referenced other projects they have completed in Carlsbad Village, such as the State Street Commons project and the Tyra Biotechnology buildings, which they believe showed their successful use of colors and materials.
Parking
Assembly Bill 2097 (2022) prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing any minimum parking standard for qualifying projects within one-half mile of public transit. For this project, the amount of parking the city can require is reduced significantly by AB 2097. Moreover, the applicant has included a Density Bonus Law concession request to eliminate all commercial parking requirements. As this mixed-use project also qualifies as a housing development project, the commercial parking requirements are subject to the Density Bonus Law. The applicant has submitted adequate justification to substantiate eliminating the commercial parking requirement as a concession.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 6 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 After receiving and considering public comments, the Planning Commission voted unanimously with the four commissioners present to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.
The minutes of the meeting are provided as Exhibit 4.
Public Notification
Public notice of this meeting, as well as for the Planning Commission hearing, was mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the project site and posted in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law.
Information regarding public notification of this item such as mailings, public hearing notices posted in a newspaper of general circulation and on the city’s website are available in the Office of the City Clerk.
The project is also subject to City Council Policy No. 84 4 – Development Project Public
Involvement Policy. In compliance with that policy:
• A notice of the project application was initially mailed on Sept. 25, 2024, to all owners of property located within a 600-foot radius.
• A two-foot-tall by three-foot-wide yellow sign was also posted at the project site on Oct. 8, 2024. Additional notices were sent and posted on Dec. 3, 2024, to reflect a change in the project, which increased the number of proposed residential units from 22 to 23 units.
• A total of 250 property owners were notified through the notice of project application.
Correspondence received prior to the Planning Commission hearing is included as a part of the Planning Commission staff report provided as Exhibit 3). Comments received after the Planning Commission hearing are included as Exhibit 8.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the proposed project.
Next Steps
If approved, the next steps for development would be the design development phase, with construction drawings. Construction drawings, such as grading and building plans, would need to be reviewed and approved by the city prior to authorizing construction work. The specific schedule would be determined by the applicant. Grading and building permits typically take between six and twelve months to process. If approved, the site development plan will expire in two years unless construction commences and could be extended for up to six additional years.
Environmental Ev aluation
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires agencies to be aware of the environmental effects of their proposed actions, to give the public an opportunity to comment on environmental issues, and to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts when it’s feasible to do so. Prior to final action on the project, an environmental determination shall be made by the City Council as part of the approval action to ensure agency compliance with CEQA.
The CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3) establish certain project types as being exempt from CEQA. One of those exemptions, set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and called a Class 32 Exemption, is for “In-Fill Development.” This 4 This project was submitted before recent updates to City Council Policy No. 84; no enhanced stakeholder outreach was required for the project.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 7 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 exemption applies to projects that meet the following criteria:
• Project site is no larger than five acres in size and substantially surrounded by urban uses • The site has no value as habitat for rare, endangered or threatened species • Project is consistent with the city’s General Plan and zoning regulations for the property • The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality
The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with the Village & Barrio Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses. There is no evidence that the site has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project will not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Staff have reviewed the scope of the project and applicable studies provided by the applicant (as amended) and finds that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents as an in-fill development project. The draft notice of exemption (Exhibit 6) demonstrates that the project qualifies for the exemption – and that none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions listed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 or Chapter 19.04 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code have been triggered. (The draft notice includes a vehicle miles traveled analysis, noise study and air quality-greenhouse gases report.) Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. Location map
3. Staff Report from April 2, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
4. Minutes from April 2, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7540 (on file in the Office o f the City Clerk)
6. CEQA Memorandum & Draft Notice of CEQA Exemption
7. Informational Bulletin IB-112 – State Density Bonus Law
8. Cor
respondence Received after April 2, 2025, to noon, July 23, 2025 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 8 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-192
A RE
SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
EXEMPTION DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO DEMOLISH AN EX ISTING TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF 5,406 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE , 23 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT UNITS , AND 24 COVERED PARKING SPACES ON A 0.46 -ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2621 ROOSEVELT STREET IN THE NORTHWEST
QUADRANT OF THE CITY, THE VILLAGE & BARRIO MASTER PLAN AREA AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME: THE ROOSEVELT
CASE NO.: SD P 2024-0001 (DEV2024-0001)
WHE
REAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on April 2, 2025, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Site Development Plan, SDP 2024-0001, as referenced in Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7540 recommending to the City Council that it be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said site development plan; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the site development plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed action to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a four-story mixed-use structure is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 – Infill Development Projects) because it is infill development within an urbanized area and meets certain criteria. No exceptions to the categorical exemption as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 or Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070(C) apply. The notice of exemption will be filed with the Recorder/County Clerk within five days after project approval by the decision-making body.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 9 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
3. That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the approval of Site Development Plan, SDP 2024-0001, is adopted and approved, and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 75 40 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, “Time Limits for Judicial Review” shall apply:
“
NOTICE”
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or ma iled to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 10 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 29th day of July, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Shin.
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Burkholder.
None.
None.
__________________
____________________
KEITH BLACKBURN, Mayor
___________________________
___________
SHERRY FREISINGER, City Clerk
(SEAL)
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 11 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
STATE ST
LAGUNA DR
ROOSEVELT ST
STATE ST ALLEY
MADISON ST
POINSETTIA LN
SDP-2024-0001(DEV2024-0014)
THE ROOSEVEL
T
SITE MAP
J
SITE
Map generated on: 3/4/2025
Exhibit 2
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 12 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Exhibit 3
Sta
ff Report from April 2, 2025,
Planning Commission Meeting
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 13 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Exhibit 4
Mi
nutes from April 2, 2025,
Planning Commission Meeting
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 14 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Exhibit 5
Planni
ng Commission Resolution No. 7540
(on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 15 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8560 fax Memorandum
JUNE 30, 2025
To: All interested parties
From: Eric Lardy, City Planner
Via Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner
Re: The Roosevelt (SDP 2024-0001 / DEV 2024-0001) - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Revised Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis On Jan. 30, 2024, Fabric 2775 Partners (“Applicant”) filed a land use development application (Planning Case Nos. SDP 2024-001)) constituting a request to replace an existing commercial structure at 2621 Roosevelt Street with a four-story mixed-use building consisting of 5,406 square feet of commercial space, 23 apartment units, and 24 covered parking spaces (“Project”). The application was submitted to, and processed by, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department and processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine if the Project was possibly exempt for the process.
SB 743 was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law in the fall of 2013. This legislation led to a change in the way that transportation impacts are measured under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent revisions to the CEQA Guidelines suggested by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provided that VMT generally is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, which resulted from SB 743’s legislative direction in 2013. The city adopted VMT thresholds and screening criteria on June 16, 2020. The city also established guidelines (“The VMT Analysis Guidelines”) to provide direction to city staff, consultants, and project applicants regarding the methodologies and thresholds to be used for VMT analysis for evaluating transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA in the City of Carlsbad.
For the Roosevelt Project (SDP 2024-0001), staff reviewed the scope of the Project and applicable studies provided by the Applicant and initially found that the project belong ed to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found to not have a significant impact on the environment. A draft Notice of Exemption was prepared by city staff and posted on the city’s website on March 13, 2025. The draft Notice of Exemption was based on information available up until the time the report was prepared , which included references to the city’s VMT Analysis Guidelines, VMT thresholds, and screening criteria . The CEQA analysis relied on the Project’s Exhibit 6
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 16 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 proximity to transit. The “transit proximate” threshold is a threshold in the city’s VMT Guidelines based on an OPR (statewide) threshold.
A recent appeals court ruling1 determined that screening criteria for VMT must be supported by substantial evidence and/or based on locally proven assumptions, rather than statewide data.
This appeals court ruling came days after the Project was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 2, 2025. In response to the appeals court ruling, the Applicant was asked by city staff to supplement the record with additional analysis. The Applicant provided additional analysis on the potential for VMT impacts created by the Project, which does not rely on a “transit proximate” screening threshold. This additional analysis is provided as Exhibit 1 to the draft Notice of Exemption, and shows no impact based on substantial evidence. The draft Notice of Exemption has been updated to reflect the date of this analysis document.
As part of an additional and optional public disclosure, the original draft Notice of Exemption was posted on the city’s website on March 13, 2025. The updated draft Notice of Exemption is a revision to the original draft Notice of Exemption. The updated draft Notice of Exemption and additional VMT analysis was posted on the city’s website on June 4, 2025. An email was sent to parties signed up to receive environmental notices for both postings.
Since the original and updated analyses reach the same conclusions, the matter does not need to be returned to the Planning Commission for additional review and consideration. The City Council is the approval body for the CEQA exemption determination. 1 Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al. v. County of San Diego (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 948, 954.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 17 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
To: Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Attn: Fish and Wildlife Notices Planning Division
1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 1635 Faraday Avenue
San Diego CA 92101 Carlsbad, CA 92008
MS: A-33 (442) 339-2600
Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act).
Project Number and Title: SDP-2024-0001 (DEV2024-0014) – THE ROOSEVELT Project Location - Specific: 2621 Roosevelt Street
Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County: San Diego Description of Project: Demolition of an existing two-story, 8,000-square-foot commercial office building followed by the construction of a four-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial space and an 8,596-square-foot parking garage on the first floor; 1,431 square feet of office space and ten residential units on the second floor; and 13 residential units on the third floor. Four of the units on the third floor include a “loft .” The 23 residential units will range in size from 495 square feet to 1,158 square feet; 20 of which will contain one bedroom and three containing two bedrooms. A total of 25 parking spaces will be provided in the first-floor parking garage for residential tenants. A 50% density bonus is requested with the dedication of 15% of the base density units to be designated for very- low-income households (2 units), and an additional 50% bonus is requested with the dedication of 15% of the base density units for moderate -income households (2 units). Two incentives/concessions and eight waivers are requested to facilitate the development including additional building height . The incentives/concessions include a request to waive the requirement that the current water main servicing the property be upsized from a six -inch water main to an eight -inch water main , and to waive all commercial parking requirements for the project. The waivers requested are from (1) front setback requirements; (2) the maximum height limit; (3) parking space size requirements; (4) prohibition on “large-mixed use” building type in the Village General District; (5) objective design standard requiring 50% of the primary building floor area face the primary street; (6) objective design standard requiring ground floor window frontage to have a minimum of 75% transparency , (7) objective design standard requiring upper stories to occupy the full ground floor footprint; and (8) objective design standard requiring shopfront façade area to be minimum 90% glazed transparent.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: BRENDAN FOOTE, FABRIC INVESTMENTS Name of Applicant: BRENDAN FOOTE, FABRIC INVESTMENTS
Applicant’s Address: 2676 STATE STREET, #100, CARLSBAD, CA, 92008 Applicant’s Telephone Number: (619) 840-7721
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 18 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Name of Applicant/Identity of person undertaking the project (if different from the applicant above):
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption: Class 32, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects)
Reasons why project is exempt: The project is consistent with the general plan as well as the zoning ordinance in terms of land use, density, and development standards. The land use regulations are set by the Village and Barrio Master Plan district, allowing density up to 23 units per acre and mixed use.
The project is within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded on all four sides by urban uses including a restaurant, carwash, trailer park, and multifamily housing . Because the site contains only non -native and ornamental vegetation, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic (as verified by the Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment prepared by Mizuta Traffic Consulting, dated May 22, 2025, Exhibit 1), noise (as verified by the Noise Study by Birdseye Planning Group dated February, 2025, Exhibit 2), air quality (as verified by the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study by Birdseye Planning Group dated October 2024, Exhibit 3), or water quality. Finally, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. In accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Project would pay the required Public Facility Fee and water and sewer connection fees to help offset the Project’s cumulative impact and help fund the public infrastructure and services necessary to accommodate growth.
Exceptions to Exemptions
CEQA Section 15300.2 – Exceptions
Planning staff evaluated all the potential exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions for the proposed project (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2) and determined that none of these exceptions apply as explained below:
a. Location. “Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these class es are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.”
Response – The location exception is not applicable to Class 32 Exemptions for In -Fill Development Projects.
b. Cumulative Impact - “All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”
Response – There is no evidence to conclude that significant impacts will occur based on past project approvals or that the proposed Project's impacts are cumulatively considerable when evaluating any cumulative impacts associated with construction air quality, noise, transportation, or water quality in the area surrounding the proposed Project. Accordingly, the Project’s incremental impacts, when considered together with the impacts of the related projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. The Project, and all future July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 19 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 projects, will be required to comply with all applicable local, regional, and state laws, regulations, and guidelines, and as described above, any potential impact cause by the Project’s construction and operation would continue to be less than significant and would not contribute significantly to regional cumulative impact in the broader project region. Therefore, this exception does not apply.
c. Significant Effect - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for any activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”
Response – There are no unusual circumstances that would have a significant impact on the environment due to the Project. The Project does not involve any unusual circumstances. In regard to biological resources, the Project is not located within an existing or proposed Hardline Conservation Areas or Standards Areas of the Habitat Management Plan , and t he conditions of approval for the Project will reduce impacts to breading or nesting birds.
d. Scenic Highway - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.”
Response – Roosevelt Street is not considered a historical and scenic corridor throughout Carlsbad, is not a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway, nor is it visible from a Carlsbad historical or scenic corridor or State Scenic Highway. The project site is also surrounded on all sides by existing residential structures. Therefore, implementation of the Project will result in similar visual conditions compared with a no project scenario.
e. Hazardous Waste Site - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.”
Response – The Project site is not identified on the Department of Toxic Substance Control geoportal map as a Cleanup, Hazardous Waste, or Inspection site. Furthermore, there is no indication that the site has had any previous uses associated with hazardous materials, such as dry-cleaning or gas station.
f. Historical Resources - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
Response – The existing commercial structure on the property, an approximately 8,000-square-foot, two-story office building, was constructed in 1979. As the structure is less than 50 years old, the structure is not listed or eligible to be listed in any national, state, or local landmark or historic district programs, nor is it eligible for listing in the Local Register. As such, development of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and this exception does not apply. The property is not known to have any other special circumstances that would make the property a historic resource.
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070(B) - Exceptions
Exceptions. Even though a project may otherwise be eligible for an exemption, no exemption shall apply in the following circumstances:
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 20 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
1. Grading and clearing activities affecting sensitive plant or animal habitats, which disturb, fragment or remove such areas as defined by either the California Endangered Species Act ( Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.), or the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 15131 et seq.); sensitive, rare, candidate species of special concern; endangered or threatened biological species or their habitat (specifically including sage scrub habitat for the California Gnatcatcher); or archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods;
Or
2. Parcel maps, plot plans and all discretionary development projects otherwise exempt but which affect sensitive, threatened, or endangered biological species or their habitat (as defined above), archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or p rehistoric periods, wetlands, stream courses designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps, hazardous materials, unstable soils, or other factors requiring special review, on all or a portion of the site. (Ord. NS-593, 2001)
Response – The Project site is located in a developed part of the city and is surrounded by residential uses. The Project site contains an existing building, parking lot and landscaping, and contains only non- natives and ornamental vegetation with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Furthermore, the site is not within mapped areas of potential critical habitat as depicted in the City’s General Plan.1
The existing commercial structure on the property, an approximately 8,000 -square-foot, two-story office building, was constructed in 1979. As the structure is less than 50 years old, the structure is not listed or eligible to be listed in any national, state, or local landmark or historic district programs. As such, development of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Furthermore, based on the amount of grading proposed (75 cubic yards of cut, 75 cubic yards of fill, and 1,100 cubic yards of remedial grading) with the project, t he likelihood that intact archaeological or cultural resources exist on the Project site is low due to previous site disturbance. Nonetheless, the Project will be conditioned to require archaeological monitoring of ground-disturbing activities during Project construction in compliance with standard City regulatory procedures outlined in the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (City of Carlsbad 2017). Therefore, earth -moving activities associated with the Project would not affect archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods.
Hazardous materials, unstable soils or other factors requiring special review do not apply or are not found within this project location.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Kyle Van Leeuwen Telephone: 442-339-2611
ERIC LARDY, City Planner Date
1 City of Carlsbad. 2015 City of Carlsbad General Plan – Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. Adopted September 2015. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3424/637434861099030000 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 21 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 22 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 23 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 24 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
THE ROOSEVELT MIXED-USE
PROJECT
NOISE STUDY
Prepared for:
Fabric 2621 Roosevelt, LLC
2676 State Street #100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
February 2025
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 25 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed Use Project
Noise Study
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed mixed‐use project at 2621 Roosevelt Street in the City of Carlsbad (APN 203‐101‐ 23). The project is located on the south side of Roosevelt Street mid‐block between Laguna Drive and Beech Avenue. The project would require a Site Development Permit to demolish an existing 8,00
0 square‐foot office building and permit the construction of a 22,505‐square foot, 3 and 4‐story, 45‐foot‐high Density‐Bonus mixed‐use building on a 0.46‐acre site. The project will include 23 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, 2 office units (approximately 1,50
0 square feet) and 5 retail units (approximately 4,000 square feet). The project will include 24 surface parking spaces under a podium as well as drive aisles and landscaped areas. The site is zoned Village‐Barrio (VB) and designated Village in the Carlsbad General Plan. Construction is anticipated to begin in mid‐2025 an d be completed in mid 2026.
Temporary Construction Noise. The main sources of noise during construction activities would include heavy machinery used during demolition, grading, and clearing the site, as well as equipment used during building construction and paving. Temporary construction noise is not restricted if it occurs between the ho
urs specified in the noise ordinance as referenced herein.
Temporary Construction‐Related Vibration. Grading within 60 feet of the nearest residential structures would be required. As discussed, a PPV of 0.2 inches/second (100 VdB) is the vibration energy required to damage fragile historic buildings. While vibration from grading may be perceived at neighboring re
sidences, the vibration energy would be well below that required to cause structural damage.
Traffic. Operational impacts related to exterior and interior traffic noise would be less than significant. The proposed project would increase noise levels at the nearest sensitive property by 0.3 dBA. With operation of the project, exterior noise level s would remain below 60 dBA, the
residential standard for exterior outdoor space. No specific design requirements are necessary to meet the standard on all exterior balconies.
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. The residential units would be served by split system fan coils with roof top condensers. All roo
f‐top equipment would be concealed behind a
parapet which typically provide a 10 dBA reduction on sound levels. As proposed the condenser units will generally be located in clusters on the northeast and northwest portions of the roof and along the south facing roof. The largest concent ration would be 10 units generally in the northwestern quadrant of the rooftop. Using an average of 35 dBA, the 10 units, assuming all were running simultaneously, would generate a combined noise level of 45 dBA. As stated, the units would be located behind a parapet which would reduce off‐site noise levels to approximately 35 dBA. The condenser units would not be audible off‐site.
Operational Vibration. The proposed project is a commercial facility with ground floor retail and event space on the second and third floors. This use does not generate vibration; thus, no vibration impacts are anticipated to occur with operation of the project.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 26 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed Use Project
Noise Study
ES-2
Exterior Railroad Noise. The AT&SF corridor is located approximately 700 feet to the west of the site and is used by Amtrak and the North County Transit District Coaster to provide passenger rail service. It is also used by freight trains during the late evening and nighttime hours. The exterior 24‐hour average sound level at the project site (700 feet west of the rail corr
idor) is approximately 57.5 dBA when both passenger and freight rail operations are combined. This is below the 60 dBA exterior noise standard.
Rail Vibration. The distance between a conventional commuter railroad and Category 2 (i.e., residential) land use where the potential for a vibration imp act to occur is 200 feet as defined in
Table 6.8 within the FTA noise and vibration impact assessment methodology. The screening distances include a 5‐decibel safety factor. The proposed project site is located outside the 200‐ foot screening distance; thus, no rail related vibr ation impacts would occur at the site.
Airport Operations. McClellen‐Palomar Airport is the nearest airport and is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the noise contour maps provided in the McClellen‐Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Exhibit III‐1, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL contour and is not affected by airport no ise. For this reason, the
project site is not located in an area affected by aircraft noise; and thus, compatibility with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is not required.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 27 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
City of Carlsbad
Table of Contents
Page
Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Setting .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview of Sound Measurement ................................................................................................. 2 Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................................................... ............... 5 Project Site Setting ............................................................................................................................ 7 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................ 8
Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Methodology and Significance Thresholds ................................................................................ 10 Temporary Construction Noise .................................................................................................... 11 Construction Noise Reduction Measures ................................................................................... 12 Residual Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 13 Temporary Construction-Related Vibration .............................................................................. 13 Long-Term Operational Noise Exposure .................................................................................... 14 Conculsion .................................................................................................................... ............................ 14
References .................................................................................................................... ............................. 20
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 – Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 – Sensitive Properties ............................................................................................................... 16
List of Tables
Table 1 – Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments ..................................... 6 Table 2 – Noise Monitoring Results............................................................................................. ............ 8 Table 3 – Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................................................. 11 Table 4 – Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project Cons truction ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5 – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................... 14 Table 6 – Modeled Noise Levels ............................................................................................................ 15
Appendices
Appendix A Noise Monitoring Data
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 28 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
2 City of Carlsbad
THE ROOSEVELT MIXED-USE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
NOISE STUDY
This report is an analysis of the potential noise impacts associated with The Roosevelt Mixed‐ Use Project, a multifamily and commercial development proposed for construction in the City of Carlsbad. The report has been prepared by Birdseye Planning Group, LLC, under contract to the applicant to support the environmental review process an d address comments provided by the City of Carlsbad after review of the initial project entitlement submittal. This study analyzes the potential for temporary impacts associated with construction activity and long‐term impacts associated with operation of the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed mixed‐use project at 2621 Roosevelt Street in the City of Carlsbad (APN 203‐101‐ 23). The project is located on the south side of Roosevelt Street mid‐block between Laguna Drive and Beech Avenue. The project would require a Site Development Permit to demolish an existing 8,000 square‐foot office b
uilding and permit the construction of a 22,505‐square foot, 3 and 4‐story, 45‐foot‐high Density‐Bonus mixed‐use building on a 0.46‐acre site. The project will include 23 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, 2 office units (approximately 1,500 square feet) and 5 re tail units (approximately 4,000 square feet). The project will include 24 surface parking spaces under a podium as well as drive aisles and landscaped areas. The site is zoned Village‐Barrio (VB) and designated Village in the Carlsbad General Plan. Construction is anticipated to begin in mid‐2025 and be completed in mid 2026 . Figure 1 provides a vicinity map; Figure 2 shows a project site plan. The following scope of work is intended to demonstrate that the project meets the conditions for a Class 32 categorical exemption for air quality.
SETTING
Overview of Sound Measurement
Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A‐weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A‐weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highe st note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).
Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the lo
garithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 29 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
- Project Site
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 30 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 2 —Site Plan
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 31 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
5 City of Carlsbad
to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1‐2 dB changes generally are not perceive d. Quiet
suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40‐50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50‐60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60‐65 dBA range, and am bient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations. Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (i.e., industrial machinery). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily tra
veled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per
doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dB A. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior‐to‐interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The ext erior ‐to‐interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings is generally 30 dBA or more.
In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or en
vironmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq).
The Leq is defined as the single steady A‐weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that cont ained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one‐hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the meas uring period.
The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day‐Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24‐hour average noise le vel with a 10‐dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24‐hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurr ing from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dB. Table 1 shows sound levels of typical noise sources measured using Leq.
Sensitive Receptors
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element Update (approved September 2015) includes a variety of land use and development types that are noise sensitive including residences, schools, churches, hospitals and convalescent care facilities.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 32 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
6 City of Carlsbad
Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Noise Source
(at Given
Distance)
Noise Environment
A-Weighted
Sound Level
(Decibels)
Human Judgment of
Noise Loudness
(Relative to Reference
Loudness of 70
Decibels*)
Military Jet Takeoff
with Afterburner
(50 ft)
Carrier Flight Deck 140 128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren (100 ft) 130 64 times as loud
Commercial Jet Take-off (200
ft) 120
32 times as loud
Threshold of Pain
Pile Driver (50 ft)
Rock Music Concert Inside
Subway Station (New York) 110 16 times as loud
Ambulance Siren (100 ft)
Newspaper Press (5 ft)
Gas Lawn Mower (3 ft)
100 8 times as loud
Very Loud
Food Blender (3 ft)
Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000
ft) Diesel Truck (150 ft)
Boiler Room
Printing Press
Plant
90 4 times as loud
Garbage Disposal (3 ft) Noisy Urban Daytime 80 2 times as loud Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft)
Living Room Stereo (15 ft)
Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft)
Commercial Areas 70 Reference Loudness
Moderately Loud
Normal Speech (5 ft)
Air Conditioning Unit
(100 ft)
Data Processing Center
Department Store 60 1/2 as loud
Light Traffic (100 ft)
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Daytime 50 1/4 as loud
Bird Calls (distant) Quiet Urban Nighttime 40
1/8 as loud
Quiet
Soft Whisper (5 ft)
Library and Bedroom at
Night Quiet Rural Nighttime 30 1/16 as loud
Broadcast and Recording
Studio 20
1/32 as loud
Just Audible
0 1/64 as loud
Threshold of Hearing
Source: Compiled by dBF Associates, Inc., 2016
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 33 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
7 City of Carlsbad
Sensitive receptors are located adjacent to and surrounding the project site. The closest sensitive receptors are apartment buildings (Village Apartments) located across Roosevelt Street and south of the site and the Carlsbad Trailer Plaza located adjacent to and south of the site.
Project Site Setting
The most common and primary sources of noise in the project site vicinity are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) along Roosevelt Streety. Motor vehicle noise can be a concern when it is characterized by a high number of individual events that can create a sustained noise level in proximity to noise sensitive uses. Interstat e 5 is located approximately 2,400 feet to the east. It is audible as background noise during traffic breaks but contributes negligibly to overall noise levels at the project site.
The Atichson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) rail corridor is located approximately 700 feet west of the site. This segmen t of the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor is the second busiest passenger and freight rail corridor in the United States. According to the rail timetables, up to 50 trains (40 passenger and 10 freight trains) use the corridor segment dai ly between Oceanside and the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. Existing wheel‐rail noise and engine noise is not audible at the project site. The warning horns/bells that are used when trains are approaching or departing the Carlsbad Village Drive station are audible as background noise but overall, rail operations contrib ute negligibly to the ambient noise environment in the study area. McClellan‐Palomar Airport is located approximately 4.3 miles southeast of the site. The site is outside the airport influence area; however, aircraft operations (airplanes and helicopters) are audible and contribute to existing noise levels in the project area. No other nois e sources are near the project site.
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Noise Element (2015) provides noise contours associated with transportation corridors (i.e., roadways, railroad and airport). This provides a graphic illustration of sound levels near road corridors, but typically does not include effects of landforms and adjacent structures. Generally, barriers between a source and receiver absorb or reflect noise resulting in a quieter environment. Where barri ers or landforms do not interrupt
the noise transmission path from source to receiver, the contours prove to be reasonable estimates of typical noise levels from roadway traffic. In areas where barriers or landforms interrupt the sound transmission, the noise contours overest imate the extent to which a source intrudes into neighboring areas. The noise contour distances describe worst‐case conditions because they do not account for any obstructions to the noise path, such as walls, berms, or buildings. As noted, railroad noise is audible when train pass‐by events occur. The contours provided in the General Plan Update Noise Element provide a reasonable prediction of rail noise levels at the site. Un
der existing conditions as shown in Noise Element Figure 5‐2, the project site is outside the 60‐65 dBA CNEL contour intervals for I‐5 and outside the 60‐65 contour for the railroad corrido
r. As shown in Noise Element Figure 5‐3, the project site would remain outside the 60‐65 dBA future contour for I‐5 and outside the contour for the railroad track at build out which is anticipated to occur in 2040. The dominant noise source at the project site is traffic on Roosevelt Street.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 34 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
8 City of Carlsbad
To gather data on the general noise environment at the project site, one weekday 15‐minute noise measurement were acquired in proximity to the project site on February 21, 2025, using an ANSI Type II integrating sound level meter. The predominant noise source in the area during monitoring was traffic on Roosevelt Street. Airc raft overflights and train pass by events contributed negligibly to ambient conditions. During monitoring, a total of 64 cars/light trucks and zero medium truck (i.e., two axles, four‐wheels) and heavy trucks (i.e., greater that two‐ axles and four wheels) passed the site on Roosevelt Street. Table 2 identifies the noise measureme
nt location and measured noise levels. The monitoring location is shown in Figure 3.
Monitoring data is provided as Appendix A.
Table 2
Noise Monitoring Results
Measurement Location Primary Noise
Source Sample Time Leq (dBA)
Project site located at 2621 Roosevelt Street Traffic Weekday afternoon 58.8 Source: Field visit using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter.
Regulatory Setting
In 1976, the California Department of Health, State Office of Noise Control published a recommended noise/land use compatibility matrix which many jurisdictions have adopted as a standard in their general plan noise elements. This matrix indicates that residential land uses and other noise sensitive receptors preferentially should be located in areas where outdoor ambient noise levels do not exceed 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL or Ldn).
Municipal Code and Noise Guideline Manual
The City of Carlsbad ha
s established noise guidelines in Table 2 of General Plan Noise Element (City of Carlsbad, 2015) that are applicable for transportation noise sources. The noise guidelines identi
fy compatible exterior noise levels for various land use types. Residential land uses are considered normally acceptable up to 60 dB CNEL. Commercial land uses are considered normally acceptable up to 65 dB CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 75 dB.
Interior spaces within commercial buildings are limited to 50 dBA CNEL.
The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code regulates construction noise by limiting the hours of operation (City of Carlsbad 20
03). Construction activities are allowed to occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., excluding le gal holidays. The City does not have quantitative noise level limits (i.e., based on sound levels) for general nuisance noise such as that associated with stationary equipment located on private property.
For the purpose of this study, the residential standard of 60 dB CNEL is used to evaluate potential exterior noise impacts as
sociated with the proposed project traffic at neighboring July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 35 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 3 —Noise Monitoring Loca Ɵon
- Project Site
Meter LocaƟon
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 36 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
10 City of Carlsbad
receivers. An interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL is used herein as referenced in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (1995).
Vibration Standards
Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second and is referenced as vibratio n decibels (VdB) for the purpose of evaluating the potential for adverse construction‐related impacts. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is a PPV of approximately 0.01 inches/second which equates to 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing li ne between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.
With respect to potential ground‐borne vibration impacts on structures, the FTA states that ground‐borne vibration levels in excess of PPV 0.2 inches/second (100 VdB) could damage fragile buildings and levels in excess of PPV 0.12 inches/second (95 VdB) could damage extremely fr
agile historic buildings. No historic buildings occur on the site or are known to occur near the site. However, to conservatively estimate potential vibration impacts on neighboring properties, a PPV of 0.2 inches per second (100 VdB) is used herein.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Construction noise estimates are based upon noise levels reported by the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from that document were used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doub ling of distance (line‐of‐sight method of sound attenuation).
The site is currently developed with one, two‐story office building. Noise levels associated with existing and future traffic were based on the difference in trip volumes between existing volumes counted during monitoring and the proposed use less traffic generated by th e existing
use. A doubling of traffic volumes would be required to cause a noticeable increase (3 dBA) in traffic noise. Thus, the two numbers were calculated to determine whether the project would generate enough traffic to cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA. Further, rail noise levels at th e site were estimated based on methodologies approved by the Federal Rail Administration.
Specific assumptions used in the analysis are described below.
As noted, a noise increase greater than 3 dBA is readily perceptible to the average human ear; and thus, is the level considered a substantial noise increase re lated to traffic operations.
However, within the City of Carlsbad, noise impacts are also considered significant if noise July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 37 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
11 City of Carlsbad
levels would exceed 60 dBA CNEL. For the purpose of this evaluation, the peak hour Leq is used for traffic noise as it provides a more conservative estimate of potential noise levels. The CNEL is used within the rail noise discussion. Existing noise levels at the site do not exceed 60 dBA as sho
wn in Table 2. Thus, the determination of impact is based on whether existing exterior noise levels would noticeably change with project operation. A noticeable change is +/‐ 3 dBA and requires that the sound energy either double or decrease by one‐half. Thus, for existing conditions at the site to no ticeably increase, the project would need to double existing traffic volumes while maintaining the same travel speed.
Temporary Construction Noise
The main sources of noise during construction activities would include heavy machinery used during demolition, grading, and clearing the site, as well as equipment used during building construction and paving. Table 3 shows typical noise levels associated with heavy construction equipment. As shown, average noise levels associated with the use of he avy equipment at construction sites can range from 81 to 91 dBA at 25 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of construction.
Table 3
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 25
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50 Feet
from the Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100
Feet from the
Source
Air Compressor 86 80 74
Backhoe 86 80 74
Bobcat Tractor 86 80 74
Concrete Mixer 91 85 79
Loader 86 80 74
Bulldozer 91 85 79
Jack Hammer 94 88 82
Pavement Roller 91 85 79
Street Sweeper 88 82 76
Man Lift 81 75 69
Dump Truck 90 84 78
Mobile Crane 89 83 77
Excavator/Scraper 91 85 79
Source: FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), Table 7-1.
Noise levels are based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax).
Noise levels are based on a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 38 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
12 City of Carlsbad
As noted, there are residential properties adjacent to and south of the site and east of the site across Roosevelt Street. Construction noise will be audible at these properties. Table 4 shows typical maximum construction noise levels at various distances from construction activity, based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The nois e level used to estimate the maximum noise level that could occur is based on use of a bobcat tractor as it is likely to be the noisiest type of equipment used over a sustained period of time during demolition and site preparation activities. Act ual noise levels will fluctuate throughout the day and may periodically exceed 84 dBA at the property line depending on the type and location of equipment used and whether multiple pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously in the same area.
Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels
at Various Distances from Project
Construction
Distance from
Construction
Maximum Noise Level at
Receptor
(dBA)
25 feet 84
50 feet 78
100 feet 72
250 feet 66
500 feet 60
1,000 feet 54
Construction noise levels at neighboring residences could be as high as 84 dBA. However, temporary construction noise is not restricted if it occurs between the hours specified in the noise ordinance referenced herein. While not required, temporary construction noise can be reduced by implementing one or more of the following measures.
Construction Noise Reduction Measures
Temporary construction noise impacts could be reduced through implementation of measures N‐1 through N‐3. These are not mitigation measures but can be implemented at the applicant’s discretion to reduce construction‐related noise.
N‐1 Construction Equipment. Electrical power scan be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Internal combustion engines should be equipped wit
h a muffler of a type recommended by the
manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel equipment should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with factory‐recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate substantial noise at the project boundaries should be shielded with temporary noise barriers, such as barriers July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 39 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
13 City of Carlsbad
that meet a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or sound blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment. Stationary noise‐generating equipment, such as generators and compressors, should be located as far as practically possible from the nearest residential property lines.
N‐2 Limit Operations Adjacent to Recei vers . Limit the number of large pieces of equipment (i.e., backhoes or concrete mixers) operating adjacent to receivers to one at any given time.
N‐3 Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants nearest to the project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor li
ving areas. This notification
should include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures being implemented at the project site. The notification should include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints as sociated with construction noise and be easily viewed from adjacent public areas.
Residual Impacts
Project construction would represent a temporary source of noise at the project site. Measures N‐1 through N‐3 could reduce construction noise levels at neighboring properties. No residual impacts associated with construction noise are anticipated.
Temporary Construction‐Related Vibration
Activities associated with mixed‐use projects do not generate vibration. Thus, this discussion will focus on temporary vibration caused by construction. As referenced, the closest residential uses are located adjacent to and south of the site and across Roosevelt Street to the east. Based on the information presented in Table 5, vibratio n levels from operation of a large bulldozer would be approximately 87 VdB (0.089 inches/second) or less at 25 feet (Caltrans 2013).
Grading within 25 feet of the mobile home park located south of the site would be required. As discussed, a PPV of 0.2 inches/second (100 VdB) is the vibrati on energy required to damage fragile historic buildings. While vibration from grading may be perceived at the adjacent mobile home park, the vibration energy would be well below that required to cause structural damage. The residences across Roosevelt Street are located approximately 60 feet to the east.
Vibration levels at residential build ings may exceed the groundborne velocity threshold level of 72 VdB for residences and/or buildings where people sleep as discussed above. Maximum vibration levels would range from 50 to 79 VdB depending on the type of equipment used.
However, as long as construction occurs within the prescribed hours, any temporary impact would be considered ad
verse, but less than significant.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 40 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
14 City of Carlsbad
Table 5
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate VdB
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 77 75
Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46
Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 1998
Long‐Term Operational Noise Exposure
Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source that would be generated by the proposed project. Thus, whether a traffic‐related noise impact would occur is based on whether the project would double peak hour traffic volumes relative to existing conditions or cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA. The peak hour is defined as th e one‐hour period between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm when the highest volumes occur. As referenced, the existing building is a two‐story office totally approximately 8,500 square feet (assuming two stories at 4,250 square feet each). Based on trip generation rates in the San Diego Association of Governments, Not So Brief Guide of Vehic
ular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, (April 2002); the existing use generates approximately 170 daily trips (20 trips per 1,000 square feet). The proposed project would provide 23 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, two office un
its (approximately 1,500 square feet) and five retail units (approximately 4,000 square feet). The project could generate up to 138 new daily residential trips (e.g., 6 trips per unit), 30 office‐related trips (e.g., 20 trips per 1,000 square feet) and 160 retail trips (e.g. 40 trips per 1,000 sq uare feet). The total estimated trips is 328 daily. Subtracting the existing trips (170), the total number of new trips generated by the project would be 158.
Noise levels generated by traffic on Roosevelt Street were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model (TNM) ver sion 2.5 software (see Appendix A). The model calculates traffic noise at receiver locations based on traffic volumes, travel speed, mix of vehicle types operating on the roadways (i.e., cars/trucks, medium trucks and heavy trucks) and related factors. Traffic volumes and vehicle mix used to calibrate TNM were based on vehicle counts obtained during the mo
nitoring period. The 15‐minute counts were multiplied by four to obtain hourly traffic counts. The model was calibrated to calculate noise levels that are +/‐ 2 dBA those measured on‐site and reported in Table 2.
Noise levels were calculated at the following re
ceivers and are intended to represent conditions
at multiple receivers within proximity to these locations:
1. Multifamily residences (Village Apartments) at 2636 Roosevelt Street; July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 41 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
15 City of Carlsbad
2. Project site – 2621 Roosevelt Street; and
3. East side of Carlsbad Trailer Plaza south of the site at 2630 State Street.
The receiver locations are shown in Figure 4. As shown in Table 6, the daytime hourly average (Leq) does not exceed the 60‐dBA standard at all receivers modeled under baseline conditions.
The addition of 15
8 daily (16 peak hour) trips with the project would increase noise levels as shown. The change in noise levels would not be audible and would not cause traffic‐related noise levels to exceed 60 dBA CNEL. The change in noise levels would be below what is required to resu
lt in a noticeable increase. Thus, long term traffic operation associated with the project would have no adverse effect on noise levels at sensitive properties within proximity to the site. Project impacts with respect to exterior traffic noise would be less than significant.
Table 6
Modeled Noise Levels
Receptor Existing Leq Exceed
Standard?
With Project
Leq
dBA Change Significant
Impact
Site 1 58.1 No 58.4 +0.3 No
Site 2 58.9 No 59.2 +0.3 No
Site 3 59.6 No 59.8 +0.2 No
Exterior Outdoor Space. As stated, existing ambient noise levels along Roosevelt Street, including the project site, are dominated by traffic on Roosevelt Street. As stated, Interstate 5 is audible as background noise during traffic breaks on Roosevelt Street but contributes negligibly to ambient conditions. The measured noise level approximately 40 feet from the Roosevelt Street centerline is 58.8 dB
A as shown in Table 2. Traffic noise levels attenuate approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Thus, at 100 feet from the Roosevelt Street centerline, traffic noise levels are approximately 50.8 dBA and 45.9 dBA at 176 feet (the distance from the centerline to the west site boundary). Noise levels across the sit e are below the 60 dBA
residential standard under existing conditions. The outdoor open space will have framed stucco guard rails except the four western facing units which will be perforated metal screen. The outdoor ambient conditions do not e xceed the 60 dBA residential standard. However, the wood‐framed stucco balcony guard rails will provide up to 10 dBA of attenuation behind the barrier. This assumes there are no gaps at the corners or tie‐in points at the building walls. No sound attenuation is required to meet the outdo or open‐space standard at all units.
Interior Traffic Noise. Current development is designed to meet or exceed California Energy Code Title 24 standards which specify construction methods and materials that result in energy efficient structures and up to a 30 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels (assuming windows are closed). Older residences typically pr
ovide a 20‐25 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels. When windows are open the insertion loss drops to about 10 dBA. Assuming windows are closed, interior noise levels would be reduced to between 29.2 and 34.2 dBA (baseline) at the project site. Similar attenuation would be achieved at the Village Apartments. The interior standard (45 dBA) is met under baseli
ne conditions and noise levels would not change with the project.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 42 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 4 —Noise Receiver Loca Ɵons
- Project Site
R3
R2
R1
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 43 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
17 City of Carlsbad
Exterior Railroad Noise. The AT&SF corridor is located approximately 700 feet to the west of the site and is used by Amtrak and the North County Transit District Coaster to provide passenger rail service. It is also used by freight trains during the late evening and nighttime hours. Based on the timetables, app roximately 50 trains operate daily within this segment.
Train volumes vary throughout the day but are generally higher during the morning and evening commute hours and reflect the dominant use of this corridor by commuter rail and passenger trains.
Train noise is generated by a combination of factors including the numbe r of locomotives, rail cars, speed, volume distribution over the day and nighttime hours and whether train horns are used. The existing rail noise levels at the project site were calculated using a proprietary software program based on Federal Rail Administration methodology. It was assumed the average speed through the area is 50 miles per hour and that each passenger train has one locomoti
ve and 10 rail cars. For freight trains it was assumed they have two locomotives and 50 cars. Train warning horns were audible during monitoring as a distant source; thus, it was conservatively assumed that train operators do use the war ning horn when passing by the site.
Of the 50 train pass by events each day, five freight operations were assumed to occur during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. Based on these assumptions, the exterior CNEL at the project site (700 feet west of the rail corr idor) is approximately 57.5 dBA when both passenger and freight rail operations are combined. The estimated CNEL is less than measured background noise and generally appears consistent with CNEL contours provided in the 2015 General Plan Update Noise Element for residential areas within the City of Carlsbad. Rail operation would not exceed the reco mmended CNEL (60‐dBA) for residential uses.
Interior Railroad Noise. The existing exterior CNEL at the site exceeds the standard recommended by the City of Carlsbad for residential uses. However, the project would have no impact on noise levels. Design features associated with the project would reduce in terior noise
levels to at least 45 dBA CNEL as specified in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual for sensitive land uses (i.e., residences). As noted above, the proposed project would be designed to meet or exceed California Energy Code Title 24 standards which specify construction methods and materials that result in energy ef ficient structures and up to a 30 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels (assuming windows are closed). Assuming windows are closed, the CNEL associated with rail noise would be well below background noise levels. No measures in addition to compliance with Title 24 design requirements would be necessary to reduce interior rail noise.
Rail Vibration. As note
d, the proposed project would be constructed approximately 700 feet east of the rail corridor. The distance between a conventional commuter railroad and Category 2 (i.e., residential) land use where the potential for a vibration impact to occur is 200 feet as defined in Table 6.8 wit
hin the FTA noise and vibration impact assessment methodology. The screening distances include a 5‐decibel safety factor. The proposed project site is located outside the 200‐foot screening distance; thus, no rail related vibration impacts would occur at the site.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 44 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
18 City of Carlsbad
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. The residential units would be served by split system fan coils with roof top condensers. There is no common area ventilation proposed. A roof top exhaust would be installed for a central boiler system which would be located inside the building as well as two exhaust shafts for the street level commercial suites. All roof‐top equipment would be co
ncealed behind a parapet which typically provides a 10 dBA reduction in rooftop sound levels. As proposed, the condenser units will generally be located in clusters on the northeast and northwest portions of the roof and along the south facin g roof. The largest concentration would be 10 units generally in the northwestern quadrant of the rooftop. The largest condenser units generated approximately 52 dBA at 5 feet. Assuming all 10 units running simultaneously, the combined noise level would be 62 dBA at 5 feet. As stated, the units would be located behind a parapet which would red uce off‐site noise levels to approximately 52 dBA. The distance from the units to the nearest receivers would further attenuate noise levels. The condenser units would meet the 60 dBA residential standard.
Assuming an ambient condition of 58.8 dBA, the units would not be aud ible off‐site.
Airport Noise. McClellen‐Palomar Airport is the nearest airport and is located approximately
4.3 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the noise contour maps provided in the McClellen‐Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Exhibit III‐1, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL contour and is not affected by airport noise (McClellen‐Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Pla
n (adopted January 25, 2010). For this reason, the project site is not located in an area affected by aircraft noise; and thus, compatibility with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is not required.
Conclusion
The proposed project was evaluated for potential construction and operational noise impacts in accordance with the City of Carlsbad guidelines and applicable CEQA significance thresholds.
As discussed herein, project related noise impacts would be less than significant.
Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent i ncrease in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The main sources of noise during construction activities would include heavy machinery used during demolition, grading, and clearing the site, as we ll as equipment used during building
construction and paving. Temporary construction noise is not restricted if it occurs between the hours specified in the noise ordinance as referenced herein. Because with project traffic conditions are less than 60 dBA, the outdoor open space noise level requirement would be met.
The use of balcony partition barriers would further reduce exterior noise levels within the balcony open space. Op
erational impacts related to exterior and interior traffic noise would be less than significant. No impact would occur with operation of the building HVAC system.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 45 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
19 City of Carlsbad
The project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Would the project result in the generation of excessive groun dborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
As stated herein, temporary impacts associated with construction vibration would be less than significant. The proposed project is a 23‐unit mixed use building with ground floor office and commercial space. Thes uses do not generate vibration; thus, no vibration impacts are anticipated to occur with operation of the project.
For a project located wi
thin the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people re siding or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
McClellen‐Palomar Airport is the nearest airport and is located approximately 4.3 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the noise contour maps provided in the McClellen‐ Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Exhibit III‐1, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNE
L contour and is not affected by airport noise (McClellen‐Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (adopted January 25, 2010). For this reason, the project site is not located in an area affected by aircraft noise; and thus, compatibility with an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is not required.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 46 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Noise Study
20 City of Carlsbad
References
City of Carlsbad. General Plan Update Noise Element. 2015.
City of Carlsbad. Noise Guidelines Manual. September 1995.
San Diego Association of Governments Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002
Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Model. 2006. Users Guide Table 1.
Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Noise Model Version 2.5, 2004.
Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Guidelines (Report Number 293630‐1), December 1998.
Lee and Associates, Inc., McClellen‐Palomar Air
port Land Use Compatibility Plan (adopted
January 25, 2010).
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 47 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
Appendix A
Appendix A
Monitoring Data Sheet
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 48 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 49 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Number 63
Start Date 2/21/2025
Start Time 4:15:15 PM
End Time 4:30:15 PM
Duration 00:15:00
Meas Mode Single
Input Range Low
Input Type Mic
SPL Time Weight Slow
LN% Freq Weight dBA
Overload No
UnderRange No
Sensitivity 18.44mV/Pa
LZeq 69.9
LCeq 68.5
LAeq 58.8
LZSmax 84.0
LCSmax 83.6
LASmax 69.9
LZSmin 61.3
LCSmin 59.0
LASmin 45.9
LZE 99.4
LCE 98.0
LAE 88.3
LZpk 95.3
LCpk 94.9
LApk 86.9
LAS1% 68.0
LAS2% 66.9
LAS5% 65.4
LAS8% 64.2
LAS10% 63.4
LAS25% 59.1
LAS50% 53.3
LAS90% 48.2
LAS95% 47.5
LAS99% 46.9
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 50 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS <Project Name?>
<Organization?> 25 February 2025
<Analysis By?> TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: <Project Name?>
RUN: 2621 Roosevelt Street Existing
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
Receiver1 1 1 0.0 58.1 66 58.1 10 ---- 58.1 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver2 2 1 0.0 58.9 66 58.9 10 ---- 58.9 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver3 3 1 0.0 59.6 66 59.6 10 ---- 59.6 0.0 8 -8.0 Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Program\2621 Roosevelt Street 1 25 February 2025 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 51 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS <Project Name?>
<Organization?> 26 February 2025
<Analysis By?> TNM 2.5
Calculated with TNM 2.5
RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS
PROJECT/CONTRACT: <Project Name?>
RUN: 2621 Roosevelt Street With Project
BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use
ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA.
Receiver
Name No. #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier
LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus
Goal
dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB
Receiver1 1 1 0.0 58.4 66 58.4 10 ---- 58.4 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver2 2 1 0.0 59.2 66 59.2 10 ---- 59.2 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver3 3 1 0.0 59.8 66 59.8 10 ---- 59.8 0.0 8 -8.0 Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction
Min Avg Max
dB dB dB
All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0
All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
C:\TNM25\Program\2621 Roosevelt With Project 1 26 February 2025 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 52 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
THE ROOSEVELT MIXED-USE
PROJECT
AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY
Prepared for:
Fabric 2621 Roosevelt, LLC
2676 State Street #100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
December 2024
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 53 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed Use Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed mixed-use project at 2621 Roosevelt Street in the City of Carlsbad (APN 203-101- 23). The project is located on the south side of Roosevelt Street mid-block between Laguna Drive and Beech Avenue. The project would require a Site Development Permit to demolish an existing 8,000 square-foot office building and permit the construction of a 22,505-square foot, 3 and 4-story, 45-foot-high Density-Bonus mixed-use building on a 0.46-acre site. The project will include 23 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, 2 office units (approximately 1,500 square feet) and 5 retail units (approximately 4,000 square feet). The project will include 24 surface parking spaces under a podium as well as drive aisles and landscaped areas. The site is zoned Village-Barrio (VB) and designated Village in the Carlsbad General Plan.
Construction would require the demolition and removal of an existing 8,000 square foot commercial office building and adjacent parking lot. Construction is anticipated to begin in mid-2025 and be completed in mid 2026.
Air Quality Management Plan Consistency. The project is consistent with the VB zoning designation and is anticipated in the local plans and SANDAG’s population and employment growth projections. Thus, the project would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and would not conflict with the State Implementation Plan or Regional Air Quality Strategy.
Construction and Operational Emissions. Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the San Diego Air Pollution Control District thresholds. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The project would not cause or contribute to CO hot spots , impacts related to indoor air quality or otherwise expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Odors. The project would provide 23 residential units, 24 garage parking spaces, approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,500 square feet of office space as well as r elated infrastructure improvements. These uses would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project’s annual Greenhouse Gas emissions would not exceed the impact thresholds of 3,000 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent emissions annually. Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 54 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
i
THE ROOSEVELT MIXED-USE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY
Table of Contents
Page
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
SETTING ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Air Pollution Regulation .......................................................................................................... 4 California Air Resources Board .............................................................................................. 5 San Diego Air Polution Control District ................................................................................ 5 Air Quality Management Plans .............................................................................................. 6 SDAPCD Rules and Regulations ............................................................................................ 8 Regional Climate and Local Air Quality ............................................................................... 9 Pollutants .................................................................................................................... ............... 10 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................... 13 Monitored Air Quality ......................................................................................................... .... 13
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 14 Methodology and Significance Thresholds ........................................................................... 14 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................ 18 Operational Impacts ................................................................................................................. 20
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 24
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 30
List of Figures
Figure 1 Vi cinity Map ............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Site Plan ........................................................................................................... .......... 3
List of Tables
Table 1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................. 5 Table 2 San Diego County Attainment Status ................................................................. 11 Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Data .................................................................................... 15 Table 4 SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds ............................................... 17 Table 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Constr uction Emissions With Dust Control Measures.................................................................................................................. 20 Table 6 Estimated Oper ational Emissions ........................................................................ 22 Table 7 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................ 26 Table 8 Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas
Emissions ................................................................................................................. 2 6 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 55 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
ii
Table 9 Estimated Annual Solid Waste an d Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions . 27 Table 10 Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ............................ 28 Table 11 Combined Annual Gr eenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 28
Appendices
Appendix A CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Results – Summer/Annual Emissions
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 56 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
1 THE ROOSEVELT MIXED-USE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY
This report is an analysis of the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with The Roosevelt Mixed‐Use Project, a multifamily and commercial development proposed for construction in the City of Carlsbad. The report has been prepared by Birdseye Planning Group, LLC, under contract to the applicant to support the environmental review process and address comments provided by the City of Carlsbad after review of the initial project entitlement submittal. This study an
alyzes the potential for temporary impacts associated with construction activity and long‐term impacts associated with operation of the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed mixed‐use project at 2621 Roosevelt Street in the City of Carlsbad (APN 203‐101‐ 23). The project is located on the south side of Roosevelt Street mid‐block between Laguna Drive and Beech Avenue. The project would require a Site Development Permit to demolish an existing 8,000 square‐foot office b uilding and permit the construction of a 22,505‐square foot, 3 and 4‐story, 45‐foot‐high Density‐Bonus mixed‐use building on a 0.46‐acre site. The project will include 23 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, 2 office units (approximately 1,500 square feet) and 5 re tail units (approximately 4,000 square feet). The project will include 24 surface parking spaces under a podium as well as drive aisles and landscaped areas. The site is zoned Village‐Barrio (VB) and designated Village in the Carlsbad General Plan.
Construction is anticipated to begin in mid‐2025 and be completed in mid 202 6. Figure 1 provides a vicinity map; Figure 2 shows a project site plan. The following scope of work is intended to demonstrate that the project meets the conditions for a Class 32 categorical exemption for air quality. While not required for a Class 32 exemption, for informational purposes, this report also analyze
s the Projectʹs contribution to GHG emissions.
The following measures are intended to demonstrate compliance with statewide regulations; and thus, have been incorporated into the the air emissions modeling:
The project will provide recycling bins in the trash enclosure areas located on the podium level;
The project will install drought‐tolerant vegetation and water‐efficient ir rigation
systems;
The project will install low‐water use appliances and fixtures; The project will install Energy Star, or equivalent, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, and fans;
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 57 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
- Project Site
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 58 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Figure 2 —Site Plan
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 59 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
4 The project will be compliant with San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 67.0.1 (d) which requires the use of low Volitile Organic Compound (VOC) paint (no greater than 50 grams/Liter) for use on buildng interior and exterior surface and 100 grams/Liter for traffic marking coatings; and
The project will install b icycle parking facilities on the podium level.
Dust Control Methods
The project would implement various construction dust control strategies as design features to be compliant with SDAPCD Rule 55. Compliance with these dust control measures are listed as follows and would be identified on grading plan approvals:
During clear
ing, grading, earth‐moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day’s activities cease;
During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement da
mp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas later in the morning, after work is completed for the day, and whenever winds exceed 15 mph during active operations.
Watering of active disturbance areas, including ac tive grading areas and unpaved roads, would occur approximately every 2 hours of active operations, approximately three times per work day (at a minimum):
All grading and excavation operations shall be halted when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour;
Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadways shall be swept, vacuumed, and/or washed at the end of each workday; and
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material to and from the construction site shall be covered and/or a minimum 2 feet of freeboard shall be maintained.
REGULATORY SETTING
Air Pollution Regulation
Air pollutants are regulated at the national, State, and air basin level; each agency has a different degree of control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulates at the national level; the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) regulates at the State level; and the SDAPCD regulates air quality in San Diego County.
The federal and st
ate governments have been empowered by the federal and state Clean Air Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 60 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
5 standards for the protection of public health. The USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer national air quality regulations, while CARB is the state equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency. Local control over air quality management is provided by CARB through multi‐county and county‐level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD s) (also referred to as Air Quality Management Districts). CARB establishes statewide air quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has established 15 air basins statewide. The City of Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD.
California Air Resources Board
CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), meeting state requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and establishing California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQSs). It is also responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in Cal ifornia and for other emission sources such as consumer products and certain off‐road equipment. CARB also established passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level. The CCAA is administered by CARB at the state level and by the Air Q
uality Management Districts at the regional level. Both state and federal standards are summarized in Table 1. The federal ʺprimaryʺ standards have been established to protect the public health. The federal ʺsecondaryʺ standards are intended to protect the na tionʹs welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the general welfare.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
The SDAPCD was created to protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution, achieve and maintain air quality stand
ards, foster community involvement and develop and implement cost‐effective programs that meet state and federal mandates while considering environmental and economic impacts.
Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards Ozone
(O3)
1 hour 0.09 ppm --
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO
2)
Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
1 hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 61 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
6 Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Annual Average -- 0.03 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb
Respirable Particulate Matter
(PM
10)
24 hours 50 mg/m 3 150 mg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 mg/m 3 --
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM
2.5)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 mg/m 3 12 mg/m3
24 hours -- 35 mg/m3
Sulfates 24 hours 25 mg/m3 --
Lead 30-day Average 1.5 mg/m3 --
Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 mg/m3
3-month Rolling Average -- 0.15 mg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm --
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.010 ppm --
Notes:
ppm = parts per million
ppb – parts per billion
mg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board 2016
Specifically, the SDAPCD is responsible for monitoring air quality and planning, implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs developed include air quality rules and regulations that regulate stationary source emissions, including area sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions. The SD
APCD is also responsible for establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified or relocated stationary sources do not create net emissions increases; and thus, are consistent with the regionʹs air quality goals. The SDAPCD provides significance thresholds in Regulation II, Rule 20.2, Table 20‐2‐1. “AQIA Trigger Levels.” These trigger leve
ls were established for stationary sources of air pollution and are commonly used for environmental evaluations. The SDAPCD enforces air quality rules and regulations through a variety of means, including inspections, educational or training programs, or fines, when necessary. The project site is withi n the SDAB; and thus, is subject to SDAPCD rules and regulations.
State Implementation Plan/Air Quality Management Plan/Regional Air Quality Strategy
The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. SIPs are comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain n ational and state ambient air quality July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 62 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
7 standards. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (i.e., monitoring, modeling and permitting programs), district rules, state regulations and federal controls and include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures.
State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agenci
es prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register.
Thus, the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SDAPCD and referenced herein become part of the SIP as the material relates to efforts ongoing in San Die
go County to achieve the national and state ambient air quality standards. The most recent SIP element for San Diego County was submitted in December 2016. The document identifies control measures and as sociated emission reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 Federal 8‐hour ozone standard by July 20, 2018.
The San Diego RAQS was developed pursuant to California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and was updated in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 20
09 and 2016. The 2022 RAQS update is under development. Until it is adopted, the 2016 is applicable and can be found at the following:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/2016%20RAQS%20(1 ).pdf
The RAQS identifies feasible emission control measures to provide progress in San Diego County toward attaining the State ozone standard. The pollutants addressed in the RAQS are volatile organic compounds (VOC) (also referred to as Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), precursors to the photochemical formation of ozone (the primary component of smog). The RAQS was initially adopted by the SDAPCD on June 30, 199 2, and
amended on March 2, 1993, in response to ARB comments. At present, no attainment plan for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) or particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) is required by the state regulations; however, SDAPCD has adopted measures to reduce particulate matter in the SDAB. These measures range from regulation against open burning to incentive programs that introduce cleaner technology. These measures can be found in a report titled “Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County, December 2005: https:
//www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/PM‐ Measures.pdf
The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to estimate future emissions and then determine strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population and vehicle trends as we ll as land use plans developed by
the cities and the County as part of the development of the individual General Plans. As such, projects that propose development consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 63 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
8 which is less dense than anticipated within the General Plan, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the General Plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might conflict with the RAQS and SIP; and thus, have a potenti ally significant impact on air quality.
Under state law, the SDAPCD is required to prepare an AQMP for pollutants for which the SDAB is designated non‐attainment. Each iteration of the SDAPCD’s AQMP is an update of the previous plan and has a 20‐year horizon. Currently the SDAPCD has implemented th e 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020) and a 2004 Carbon Monoxide Plan. The 2020 ozone plan was submitted to CARB on October 20, 2020. It was adopted and submitted to the USEPA for review on December 28, 20 20. Comments from the USEPA are pending. This plans is available for download on the ARB website located at the following URL:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attain ment%20Plan)_ws.pdf
SDAPCD Rules and Regulations
As stated above, SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the SDAB. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources in the jurisdiction of SDAPCD, and would apply to the project.
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Pro hibits discharge into
the atmosphere from any single source of emissions whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes that is darker in shade than that designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United St
ates Bureau of Mines, or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a degree greater than does smoke of a shade designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart (SDAPCD 1997).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any source, of such quantities of air contaminant s or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1976).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any commercial construction or d
emolition activity capable of generating
fugitive dust emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as track‐out and carry‐out onto paved roads beyond a project site (SDAPCD 2009b).
SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural an d industrial maintenance coatings
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 64 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
9 to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015).
SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminates; Rule 1200: Toxic Air Contaminants – New Source Review. Requires new or modified stationary source units with the potential to emit Toxic Air Contaminat
nts (TACs) above rule threshold levels to either demonstrate that they will not increase the maximum incremental cancer risk above 1 in 1 million at every receptor location, or demonstrate that toxics best available control technology (T‐BACT) will be employed if maximum incremental cancer risk is equal to or less than 10 in 1 million, or demonstrate compliance with SDAPCD’s protocol for those sources with an increase in maximum incremental cancer risk at any receptor location of greater than 10 in 1 million but less than 100 in 1 million (SDAPCD 2017b).
SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminates; Rule 1 210: Toxic Air Contaminant Public Health Risks – Public Notification and Risk Reduction. Requires each stationary source that is required to prepare a public risk assessment to provide written public notice of risks at or above the following levels: maximum incremental cancer risks equal to or greater than 10 in 1 million, or cancer burden equal to or greater than 1.0, or tot
al acute noncancer health hazard index equal
to or greater than 1.0, or total chronic non‐cancer health hazard index equal to or greater than
1.0 (SDAPCD 2017c).
Regional Climate and Local Air Quality
The weather of San Diego County is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi‐permanent high‐pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters.
The average minimum temperature for January ranges from the mid‐40s to the high‐50s degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 15 degrees Celsius) across the co
unty. July maximum temperatures average in
the mid‐80s to the high‐90s degrees Fahrenheit (high‐20s to the high‐30s degrees Celsius). Most of the county’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately 10 percent) precipitation during the summer. The average seasonal precipitation along the coast is approximately 10 inches (254 milli
meters); the amount increases with elevations as moist air is lifted over the mountains.
The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High‐Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and drives the prevailing winds. Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland and winds in inland mounta
inous areas tend to blow upwards in the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.
In conjunction with the onshore/offshore wind patterns, there are two types of temperature inversions (reversals of the normal decrease of temperature with height), which occur within the region t
hat affect atmospheric dispersive capability and that act to degrade local air quality.
In the summer, an inversion at about 1,100 to 2,500 feet (335 to 765 meters) is formed over the entire coastal plain when the warm air mass over land is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air flowing onshore. The prevailing sunny days in th is region further exacerbate the
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 65 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
10 smog problem by inducing additional adverse photochemical reactions. During the winter, a nightly shallow inversion layer (usually at about 800 feet or 243 meters) forms between the cooled air at the ground and the warmer air above, which can trap vehicular pollutants. The days of highest Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations occur during the winter mont hs.
The predominant onshore/offshore wind pattern is sometimes interrupted by so‐called Santa Ana conditions, when high pressure over the Nevada‐Utah region overcomes the prevailing westerly wind direction. This draws strong, steady, hot, and dry winds from the east over the mountains and out to sea. Strong Santa Ana winds tend to blow pollutants out over the ocean, producing cl
ear days. However, at the onset or breakdown of these conditions or if the Santa Ana is weak, prevailing northwesterly winds are reestablished which send polluted air from the Los Angeles basin ashore in the SDAB. “Smog transport from the South Coast Air Basin (the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riversi de counties) is a key
factor on more than half the days San Diego exceeds clean air standards” (San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 2010).
Pollutants
The SDAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality stan dards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “non‐attainment.” San Diego County is listed as a federal non‐attainme nt area for ozone (eight hour) and a state non‐attainment area for ozone (one hour and eight‐hour standards), PM10 and PM2.5. As shown in Table 2, the SDAB is in attainment for the state and federal standards for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and lead. Characteristics of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates are described below.
Ozone. Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between nitrogen oxides (NOX) ROG1. Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels, while reactive organic compounds are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in concentrations considered serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with direct health effects on h
umans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.
1 Organic compound precursors of ozone are routinely described by a number of variations of three terms: hydrocarbons (HC), organic gases (OG), and organic compounds (OC). These terms are often modified by adjectives such as total, reactive, or volatile, and result in a rather confusing array of acronyms: HC, THC (total hydrocarbons), RHC (reactive hydrocarbons), TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive organic gases), TOC (total organic compounds), ROC (reactive organic compounds), and VOC (volatile organic compounds). While most of these differ in some significant way from a chemical perspective, from an air quality perspective two groups are important: non-photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere, or photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere (HC, RHC, ROG, ROC, and VOC).
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 66 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
11 Table 2
San Diego County Attainment Status
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (one hour) Attainment* Non-Attainment
Ozone (eight hour) Moderate Non-Attainment Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable** Non-Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Non-Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
* The federal 1-hour standard of 12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 1, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was used for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
Source: San Diego Air Pollution Control District. June 2016. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/apcd/en/air-quality- planning/attainment-status.html
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a local pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile exhaust. Elevated CO concentrations; therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes operating in congested conditions. Carbon monoxide health effects are related to blood hemoglobin. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amount of o
xygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities.
Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by‐product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur.
Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish‐brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.
Suspended Particulates. PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are by‐products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads and are directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 67 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
12 come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all gro ups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.
Lead. Lead in the atmos
phere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead.
Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, seco ndary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead‐emissions sources of greater concern. Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and, in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular conc ern are low‐level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.
Sulfates. Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere.
Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility.
Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short‐term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long‐term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.
Hydrogen S
ulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs. Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.
Visibility‐Reducing Particles. Visibility‐reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed of natural scenery, reducing airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility‐ reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5 described above.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 68 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
13 Toxic Air Contaminants/Diesel Particulate Matter. Hazardous air pollutants, also known as TACs or air toxics, are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Examples of toxic air pollutants include:
1. benzene, which is found in gasoline;
2. perchloroethylene, which is emitted from some dry‐cleaning facilities; and
3. methylene ch
loride, which is used as a solvent.
Transportation related emissions are focused on particulate matter constituents within diesel exhaust and TAC constituents that comprise a portion of total organic gas (TOG) emissions from both diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles. Diesel engine emissions are comprised of ex haust particulate matter and TOGs which are collectively defined as Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM).
DPM and TOG emissions from both diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles is typically composed of carbon particles and carcinogenic substances including polycyclic aromatic (i.e., odorous) hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3‐butadiene. Diesel exhaust also contains gaseous pollut ants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx.
Sensitive Receptors
Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors include residential, school, childcare centers, acute care hospitals, and long‐term health care facilities. Sensitive receptors are determined based upon special factors which may include the age of the users or occupants, the frequency and duration of the use or occupancy, continued exposure to hazardous substances as defined by federal and sta
te regulations, and the user’s ability to evacuate a specific site in the event of a hazardous incident. Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that se
gment of the public most susceptible to
respiratory distress, such as children; the elderly; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Recreational uses can be considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise can place a high demand on respiratory fu
nctions, which can be impaired by air pollution even though exposure periods during exercise are generally short. Residential uses are considered most sensitive to air pollution while Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the ma jority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. The closest sensitive receptors are apartment buildings located across Roosevelt Street and south of the site and a trailer/mobile home park located adjacent to and south of the site.
Monitored Air Quality
The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at locations throughout the SDAB. For this analysis, data from the Camp Pendleton monitoring station north of the site were used to July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 69 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
14 characterize existing ozone, nitrogen oxide and PM2.5 conditions in the vicinity of the project site. Monitroing station is presented in Table 3.
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Air quality modeling was performed in general accordance with the methodologies outlined in the SDAPCD 2016 RAQS to identify both construction and operational emissions associated with each phase and the cumulative total of all project phases at build out. All emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2022 .1 which incorporates current air emission data, planning methods and protocol approved by CARB.
Construction activities would include removal of the existing residences and out buildings, site clearing and grading to install the buildng foundation and utility connections; construction of the new buildings and related improvements as well as painting the interior and ext erior building surfaces and minor pavement work for the entrance/exit. Construction activities would require the use of equipment that would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel‐powered.
Construction emissions associated with development of the proposed project were quantified by estimating the types of equipment, includin
g the number of individual pieces of equipment,
that would be used on‐site during each of the construction phases as well as off‐site haul trips to remove demolition debris. Construction emissions are analyzed using the regional thresholds established by the SDAPCD and pu blished under Rule 20‐2. No soil import/export would be required.
Operational emissions include mobile source emissions, energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips associated with operation of the project. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and nat ural gas consumption for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings (i.e., paints). To determine whether a regional air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions are compared with the SDAPCD recommended regional thresholds for operational emissions.
Regional Thresholds. Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2022), a projec t would have
a significant air quality impact if it would:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
c. Expose sensit
ive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 70 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
15 Table 3
Measured Air Quality Data
Averaging Time Unit
Agency/
Method
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration by
Year
Exceedances by Year
2021 2022 2023 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (O3) – Camp Pendleton
Maximum 1-hour
concentration ppm State 0.09 0.074 0.076 0.090 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour
concentration ppm
State 0.070 0.059 0.067 0.077 0 0 1
Federal 0.070 0.059 0.067 0.077 0 0 1
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – Camp Pendleton
Maximum 1-hour
concentration ppm
State 0.18 59 50 63 0 0 0
Federal 0.100 59 50 63 0 0 0
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)a – No Data
Maximum 24-hour
concentration µg/m
3 State 50 - -- -- - - -
Federal 150 - _ -- - - -
Annual concentration µg/m 3 State 20 -- -- -- -- -- --
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)a – Camp Pendleton (24 hour concentration) Maximum 24-hour
concentration µg/m3 Federal 35 20.7 17.0 26.6 0 0 0
Annual concentration µg/m 3
State 12.0 10.4 - - 0 - -
Federal 12.0 10.4 - - 0 - -
1 – Federal O3 standard reduced from 75 ppm to 70 ppm in October 2015 *Insufficient data to determine number of exceedances
Ozone, Nitrogen Oxide and PM2.5 (24-hour datra) data from the Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station.The PM2.5 annual concentration data is from the El Cajon Lexington Elementary School. No PM10 data available for San Diego Couinty..
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2021, 2022 and 2023 Air Quality Data Summaries available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php Accessed October 1, 2024.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether th e project would have a significant impact on air quality. As part of its air quality permitting process, SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 requiring the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments for July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 71 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
16 permitted stationary sources. SDAPCD establishes quantitative emission thresholds for stationary sources. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes these levels may be used to evaluate the increased emissions that would be emitted into the SDAB from proposed land development projects. Project‐related air quality impacts esti mated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds presented below in Table 4 are exceeded.
The thresholds listed in Table 4 are screening‐level thresholds used to evaluate whether proposed‐project‐related emissions could cause a significant impact to air quality. Emissions below the screening‐level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissi ons‐based
thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for ozone. This approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations associated with individ ual projects precursor (ROG and NOx) emissions cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 4, the project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants; and thus, could have a significant impact on the ambient ai
r quality.
With respect to odors, SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that involves a use that would produce o bjectionable odors
would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off‐site receptors.
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
As stated, under state law, the SDAPCD is required to prepare an AQMP for polluta nts for
which the SDAB is designated non‐attainment. Each iteration of the SDAPCD’s AQMP is an update of the previous plan and has a 20‐year horizon. A project may be deemed inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. Currently the SDAPCD has implemented th e 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020) and a 2004 Carbon Monoxide Plan. The AQMP incorporates local city General Plans and the San Diego Association of Governments socioeconomic fore cast projections of regional population, housing and employment growth.
The proposed project would construct 22 residential dwelling units of which 4 will be affordable, two office units and five retail units. The project will include 24 surface parking spaces under a podium as well as drive aisles and landscaped areas. The site is approximately
0.46 acres in size with Ge
neral Plan designation of Village, a zoning designation of V‐B and is within the Village Center subdistrict in the Village and Barrio Master Plan . The Village Center District encompasses the core of the Village and includes a mix of com mercial, attached July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 72 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
17 Table 4
SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds
Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (pounds per day)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 75
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Operational Emissions
Total Emissions
Pounds per Hour Pounds per Da y Tons per Year
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) -- 75 13.7
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55 10
Lead and Lead Compounds -- 3.2 0.6
residential, and mixed‐use building types. This district intends buildings to be generally attached and built on or near the front property line, creating, throughout most of the district, a continuous commercial street frontage (often with residences or offices above) to provide destinations and workplaces in a walkable environment that is centered around the main destinations of the Carlsbad Village Station, State Street, Grand Avenue, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
Acco
rding to the 2021‐2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6th cycle, the City of Carlsbad will need to accommodate a total of 3,873 units at varying income levels (City of Carlsbad, April 2022). Of the total, 1,778 units are allocated to the moderate and above moderate‐income categories. The project would provide 23 units which is less than one percent of Carlsbad’s housing al location within the 2021‐2029 RHNA.
The San Diego APCD and San Diego Association of Governments are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the basin, specifically, the SIP and RAQS. The federal O3 maintenance plan, which is part of th
e SIP, was adopted in 2012. The most recent O3 attainment plan was adopted in 2020. The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the basin based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is up dated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2016). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O3.
The SIP and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in the County an d the cities in the County, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 73 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
18 CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of the General Plan development process. If a project proposes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impac
t on air quality.
As stated, Village Center subdistrict designation is intended to support mixed commercial and multifamily uses. Thus, the project is consistent with City’s General Plan land use designation/
zoning; and therefore, has been factored into SANDAG’s growth projections.
Furthermore, the estimated increase in population, employment and housing generated by the project was compared to SANDAG’s Regional Plan population, employee population, and housing estimates including the years 2025 and 2035. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 49,
299 in 2025 and 51,552 in 2035, or an increase in 2,253 housing units over the 10‐year period. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 118,068 residents in 2025 and 118,719 residents in 2035, or increase of 651 residents over the period as sh own in the SANDAG Series 14 Regional Forecast and Baseline Subregional Allocation. The average household size is 2.82 people per dwelling unit. The project would construct 22 dwelling units, which would have the potential to house approximately 62 residents. Both the units and population are within the growth projections.
The employee populatio
n in the City was projected to be 88,373 in 2025 and 98,168 in 2035, or increase of 9,795 employees over the period. The proposed retail and office space would provide approximately 28 jobs. Because the project is consistent with the General Plan; and thus, SANDAG’s growth projections, project em issions would not conflict with the SIP and RAQS. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attain ment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These impacts are associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles, work crew vehicle trips in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of paint and other architectural coatings. Construction would generally consist of demolition (i.e., removal of the temporary buildings), site preparation (clearing/grubbing), excavation/grading, construction of the proposed b uildings, architectural coating (i.e., paint) application and paving.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 74 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
19 Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod 2022.1.
Construction scenario assumptions, including phasing, equipment mix, and vehicle trips, were based on information provided by the project applicant and CalEEMod default values when project specifics were not known. For purposes of estimating project emissions, it is assumed that construction of the project would occur five days per we ek and commence in mid‐2025 and
would be complete in mid‐2026. The schedule is an estimate calculated by CalEEMod 2022.1.
The duration of phases are approximated:
• Demolition: 4 weeks
• Site Prepartion: 1 week
Grading: 1 week
• Build
ing Construction: 40 weeks
• Paving: 2 weeks
• Architectural Coating: 2 weeks
Construction‐worker and vendor trips estimates by construction phase were based on CalEEMod default data. Mass grading would include the entire project site. Approximately five total trips would be required to remove demolition material. No fill impo rt is anticipated during the site preparation or grading phases. CalEEMod default trip length values were used for the distances for all construction‐related trips. Defaults for the construction equipment mix and vehicle trips used for estimating the project‐generated construction emissions were used and are provided in Appendix A.
As discussed, the project would implement dust control strategies as a project design feature.
To reflect im
plementation of proposed dust control strategies, the following was used in CalEEMod:
Water exposed area two times per day (55% reduction in PM10 and PM2.5); and Limit equipoment idling to 5 minutes.
Daily construction emissions are sho
wn in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SDAPCD daily thresholds. With SDAPCD Rule 55 compliance, federal, state and local construction emission thresholds would be met. Construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐ attainme
nt under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts will be less than significant.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 75 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
20 Table 5
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions with Dust Control Measures Construction
Phase
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NO x CO SOx PM 10 PM 2.5
2025 Maximum
lbs/day 1.5 14.3 15.8 0.02 3.4 1.9
2026 Maximum
lbs/day 17.6 8.7 10.9 0.02 0.5 0.3
SDAPCD Regional
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold
Exceeded 2022 No No No No No No
Operational Impacts
Emissions from the operational phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. Operational year 2026 was assumed consistent with completion of project construction.
Area Sources. CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with space hea ting and water heating are calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod.
Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Other paint products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer products. Consumer product VOC emissions are estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of buildings and on the default factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. The CalEEMod default values for consumer products were used.
VOC off‐gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings such as paints and
primers used during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings based on the VOC emission factor, the building square footage, the assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate.
VOC emissions were estimated based on compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 which limits the VOC concentrations of various coatings sold and used in San Diego County. Rule 67.0.1, Table 1, lists numeous types of coatings and the allowable VOC concentrations in grams/litre (g/L).The three general coating categories are 50 grams per liter (g/L) VOC for flat coatings, 100 g/L VOC for non‐flat coatings and 15 0 g/L VOC for non‐flat high gloss coatings. Consistent with typical construction practices, it is anticipated that interior and exterior paint would not exceed non‐flat coating limits, exterior paint would not exceed non‐flat coating limits and a small July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 76 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
21 portion of exterior paint and finishes (trim and other minor finishes) would not exceed non‐flat high‐gloss coatings limits. The interior and exterior coatings were estimated to have 50 g/L VOC while the traffic marking coatings were estimated to be limited to 100 g/L VOC. The default values in CalEEMod 2022.1 rely on compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 referenced above.
Energy Sources. Energy sources include emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas use. Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for GHGs in CalEEMod, since criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is typically off site. The Project will install Energy Star, or equivalent, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, and fans; bicycle parking facilities and electric vehicle charging station.
Mobile Sources. CalEEMod default data, including trip characteristics, trip lengths, variable start information and emissions factors were used for the model inputs. Project‐related traffic includes the mixture of vehicles consistent with CalEEMod default vehicle fleet assumptions.
Emission factors for 2026 (the first full year of project operation) were used to estimate emissions associated with full buildout of the project. Trip data used are 7.3 daily trips per residential unit and 44.3 trips per square foot of retail space and 9.7 trips daily for the office space or a total of 353 daily trips. Based on proximity to transit, these data likely provide a conservative estimat
e of daily trips.
Table 6 summarizes area, energy and mobile source emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. As shown in Table 6, daily emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 or PM2.5. Therefore, the project’s air quality emissions(including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors and violations of air quality standards) would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality stand ard. Impacts will be less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
would be considered a significant impact. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) health risk guidance states that a residential receptor should be evaluated based on a 30‐year exposure period. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to conce
ntrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. The estimated construction schedule duration would be approximately 12 months; however, only a portion of the overall construction work would require the use of diesel‐powered equipment. The proposed project would not resu
lt in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 year) exposure to a substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions; and thus, neighboring residents would not be exposed to the related individual cancer risk. Further, exist ing and planned land use within the project area is focused on residential uses. Thus, existing and future residents would not be exposed to neighboring July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 77 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
22 development that generates TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Impacts would be less than signficant.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
As discussed, carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that may be found in high concentrations near areas of high traffic volumes. CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. The SDAB is in attainment of state and federal CO standards; thus, CO data is no longer collected and not all mo nitoring stations have CO data available. The East Valley monitoring station in Escondido is the closest monitoring station to the site that collected CO data. The maximum 8‐hour average CO level recorded in 2015, was 2.0 parts per million (ppm). Concentrations at tha t time were below the 9‐ppm state and federal 8‐hour standard.
Numerous factors are related to the formation of CO hotspots. The potential for CO hotspots in the SDAB is steadily decreasing because of the continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth an
d/or congestion and the already very low
ambient CO concentrations. Furthermore, CO transport is extremely limited and disperses rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels.
Table 6
Estimated Operational Emissions
Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NO X CO SO X PM 10 PM 2.5
Proposed Project
Maximum lbs/day - 2026 2.4 1.2 13.0 0.02 2.3 0.6
SDAPCD Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum lbs/hour -- 0.05 0.54 0.0008 -- --
SDACPD Thresholds -- 25 100 25 -- --
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Maximum tons/year 0.4 0.2 2.4 0.004 0.4 0.10
SDAPCD Thresholds 13.7 40 100 40 15 10
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
See Appendix for CalEEMod version. 2022.1 computer model output - summer emissions shown
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 78 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
23 Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating under congested conditions. Projects contributing to adverse traffic conditions may contribute to the formation of CO hotspots. Because the City of Carlsbad does not have CO hotspot guidance, the guidance recommended by the County of San Diego was applied to evaluate the potential for CO hotspot
s to occur as a result of the project. As indicated in the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements Air Quality (County of San Diego 2007), a site‐specific CO hotspot analysis should be performed if a proposed development would cause road intersections to operate at or below a LOS E with intersection peak‐hour trips exceedin
g 3,000.
The proposed project screened out of preparation of a traffic study per the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines (May 2023). The site is located within one‐half mile of transit located at th
e Carlsbad Village multimodal station. thus, it is not expected to advsersly impact traffic volumes or traffic operation proximal to the site or otherwise result in CO hot spots that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.
Indoor Air Quality
CARB has stated that the control measures it has approved for reducing indoor emissions associated with the use of composite wood products, including formaldehyde, provides a level of control that protects health and safety. The first emission standards (Phase 1) went into effect in 2009 and more stringent Phase 2 standards are now in eff ect for all composite wood panels and finished goods sold in California. CARB regulations include provisions for no‐added formaldehyde and ultra‐low emitting formaldehyde‐based resins, to encourage the use of these lower‐emitting resins in composite wood products. Further, the project would be constructed using the mos t current ventilation requirements found in the Title 24 standards, including the requirement that new developments use MERV 13 or higher air filters and include mandatory compliance with the stringent CARB Phase 2 emission standards. Thus, the use of composite wood project will have no adverse impact on indoor air qua lity.
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 41700, SDAPCD Rule 51, and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 6.16.010, commonly referred to as public nuisance law, prohibits emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, n uisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. Projects required to obtain permits from SDAPCD are evaluated by SDAPCD staff for potential odor nuisance, and conditions may be applied (or control equipment required) where necessary to prevent occurrence of public nuisance.
SDAPCD Rule 51 also prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to a considerable number of per
sons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that involves a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 79 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
24 odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off‐site receptors. Odor issues are subjective by the nature of odors themselves and due to the fact that their measurements are difficult to quantify. As a result, this guideline is qualitative and will focus on the existing and potential surrounding uses an d location of sensitive receptors.
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical ha rm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to exhaust emissions, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substanti al numbers of people. Therefore,
project construction activities would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.
Land uses t hat typically are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, industrial activities, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project would construct and operate 22 multifamily residential units, five retail spaces, two office units and related infrastructure improvements. The project would not include land uses that typically result in emissions (such as tho
se leading to odors) that adversely affect a substantial number of people; thus, impacts would be less than significant.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Project meets the conditions for a Class 32 categorical exemption for air quality. The following analysis provides GHG emissions from construction and operational activities for informational purposes only.
Methodology
GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and existing development have been estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of construction equipment, worker trips and truck trips required for hauling excavation spoils, materials and equipment. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest emission quantities because the use of heavy equipment is greatest during July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 80 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
25 this phase of construction. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on‐site at one time.
Air districts such as the SDAPCD have recommended amortizing construction‐related emissions over a 30‐year period to calculate annual emissions. Complete CalEEMod resu lts and assumptions can be viewed in the Appendix.
Operational Emissions
Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies.
CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4. This methodology has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC; and therefore, is considered reasonable and reliable for use in GHG impact analysis pursuant to CEQA. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008).
Emissions associated with area sources (i.e., co nsumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating) were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2022). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid was te using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod User Guide, April 2022). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage ca
lculated in CalEEMod were based on the default
electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water‐Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California. Emissions from mobile sources were quantified based on default trip generation rates.
Construction Emissions. Construction activity analysis is based on the antic ipated construction period beginning in mid 2025 and ending in 2026. Based on CalEEMod results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 264 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) as shown in Table 7. Amortized over a 30‐year period (the assumed life of the project), construction of the proposed project would generate 8 metric tons of CO2E per year.
Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions. Operational emissions relate to energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation. Each source is discussed below and includes the emissions associated with existing development and the anticipated emissions that would result from the proposed project.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 81 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
26 Table 7
Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Year Annual Emissions
(metric tons CO2E)
2025 154
2026 79
Total 233
Amortized over 30 years 8
See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output
Energy Use. CalEEMod default values for electricity use and natural gas consumption for each land use type were applied for the proposed land use designation. The energy use from residential and commercial land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the Commercial End‐ Use Survey. Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by CalEEMod into end‐use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associa ted with the building envelope, such as the HVAC system, water heating system, and integrated lighting) and those not subject to Title 24 requirements (such as appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous“plug‐in” uses).
Operational GHG emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances and space an d water heating. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2023. The current version of CalEEMod calculates electricity and natural gas emissions based on consumption estimates and Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CalEEMod Users Guide, 2022). CalEE
Mod default energy intensity factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt hour) for SDG&E were based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. As shown in Table 8, the overall emissions associated with electrical energy use at the project site would be approximately 43 metric tons of CO2E per year. An additional 19 MT CO2E would be attributable to natural gas.
Table 8
Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Proposed Project
Electricity 43 metric tons
Natural Gas 19 metric tons
Total 62 metric tons
See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 82 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
27 Water Use Emissions. Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey this amount of water, as shown in Table 9, the project would generate approximately 3 metric tons of CO2E per year. Emissions related to water consumption would be reduced by 20% per Senate Bill X7‐7, by implementing measures that include the installation of low flow plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, show heads) and water efficient irrigation systems.
Solid Waste Emissions. Implementation of a municipal recycling program that would achieve a 75% diversion rate statewide is required for residential uses per the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The CalEEMod results indicate that the project would result in approximately 2 metric tons of CO2E per year associated with solid waste disposed within landfills provided 75% of solid waste is recycled (Table 9).
Transportation Emissions. Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the trip generation rates provided in CalEEMod 2022.1 (i.e., Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition). Table 10 shows the estimated mobile emissions of GHGs for the project based on the estimated annual VMT of 1,096,877 as estimated by CalEEMod 2022.1 (see Appendix A) As shown in Table 10, the project would generate approximately 401 metric tons of CO2E associated with new vehicle trips.
Combined Construction, Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions
Table 11 combines the net new construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. As discussed above, temporary emissions associated with construction activity (approximately 233 metric tons CO2E) are amortized over 30 years (the anticipated life of the project). For the proposed project, the combined annual emissions would total approximately 469 metric tons per year of CO2E.
Table 9
Estimated Annual
Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Water 3 metric tons
Solid Waste 2 metric tons
Total Water and Solid Waste 5 metric tons
See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 83 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
28 Table 10
Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Proposed Project
Mobile Emissions (CO2 & CH4) 401 metric tons
Total 401 metric tons
See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output.
Table 11
Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Construction 8 metric tons
Operational
Energy
Solid Waste
Water
Area Source
62 metric tons
2 metric tons
3 metric tons
1 metic tons
Mobile 401 metric tons
Total 477 metric tons
See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output.
Conclusion
As stated herein, the project is new construction of 23 new multifamily units with 24 parking spaces and approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space and 1,500 square feet of office space.
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The project is consistent with the VB zoning desi
gnation and is anticipated in the local plans
and SANDAG’s population and employment growth projections. Thus, the project would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and would not conflict with the SIP and RAQS.
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SDA PCD thresholds.
Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 84 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
29 pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The project would not cause or contribute to CO hot spots or otherwise expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operations.
Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The project would provide 23 multifamily units, associated garage parking and both retal and office space. These uses would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 85 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
30 REFERENCES
Association of Environmental Professionals. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines. 2021
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emission Estimator Model version 2022.1.1.22, May 2022.
California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Qu
ality Standards. Updated February, 2016.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐management‐ plans/naaqs‐caaqs‐feb2016.pdf
California Air Resources Board, Maps of State and Federal Area Designations, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps‐state‐and‐federal‐area‐ designations?corr
California Air Resources Board. 2020, 2021, & 2022 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed May 202 4.
California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018, 2020 Edition.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00‐
18.pdf
California Air Resources Board. June 2017. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Inventory Program.
Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm
California Air Resources Board. April 2012. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2020 Emissions Forecast. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/ forecast.htm
California Air Resources Board. May 2014. 2020 Business As Usual Emission Projection, 2014 Edition. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/2020_bau_forecast_by_scoping_categor y_2014‐05‐22.pdf
California Air Resources Board. June 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory– 2015 Edition Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm
California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity‐Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2
009.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 86 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Mixed-Use Project
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
City of Carlsbad
31 California Environmental Protection Agency, March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006‐04‐ 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF
City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad Climate Action Plan. September 2015, Updated April 2020.
City of Carlsbad. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, May 2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Kroeze, C.; Mosier, A.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger, S.; Cleemput, O. van; Co nrad, R.; Mitra, A.P.; H.U., Neue; Sass, R.]. Paris: OECD, 1997.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, 2014.
Office of the California Attorney General. The California Environmental Quality Act, Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Updated May 21, 2008. ht
tp://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2010. U. S. EPA #430‐R‐11‐005. April 2012. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2015. U. S. EPA #430‐P‐17‐00 1. April 2017. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory‐us‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐and‐sinks‐ 1990‐2015
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2019, U. S. EPA #430‐R‐21‐001. February 2021 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 87 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3
Appendix A
CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Results – Summer/Annual
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 88 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
1 / 86
The Roosevelt 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. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 89 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
2 / 86
3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 90 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
3 / 86
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
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 91 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
4 / 86
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
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 92 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
5 / 86
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
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 93 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
6 / 86
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
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 94 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
7 / 86
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
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 95 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
8 / 86
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
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 96 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
9 / 86
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name The Roosevelt
Construction Start Date 6/3/2025
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.90
Precipitation (days) 21.8
Location 33.16432175074195, -117.35140766542256
County San Diego
City Carlsbad
Air District San Diego County APCD
Air Basin San Diego
TAZ 6228
EDFZ 12
Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.29
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area
(sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Low
Rise
23.0 Dwelling Unit 1.44 24,380 1,000 — 64.0 —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 97 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
10 / 86
General Office
Building
1.50 1000sqft 0.03 1,500 250 — — —
Strip Mall 4.00 1000sqft 0.09 4,000 250 — — —
Unenclosed
P
arking Structure
24.0 Space 0.22 9,600 200 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan
* 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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 17.7 14.4 15.8 0.03 0.64 2.85 3.49 0.59 1.36 1.95 — 2,943 2,943 0.12 0.08 1.16 2,970 Mit. 17.7 14.4 15.8 0.03 0.64 2.85 3.49 0.59 1.36 1.95 — 2,943 2,943 0.12 0.08 1.16 2,970 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.16 9.19 11.0 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.54 0.30 0.05 0.36 — 2,116 2,116 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,130 Mit. 1.16 9.19 11.0 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.54 0.30 0.05 0.36 — 2,116 2,116 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,130 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 98 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
11 / 86
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.73 4.14 4.84 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.19 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.19 928 Mit. 0.73 4.14 4.84 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.19 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.19 928 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.13 0.76 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 154 Mit. 0.13 0.76 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 154 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.55 14.4 15.8 0.03 0.64 2.85 3.49 0.59 1.36 1.95 — 2,943 2,943 0.12 0.08 1.16 2,970 2026 17.7 8.78 11.0 0.02 0.29 0.21 0.51 0.27 0.05 0.32 — 2,121 2,121 0.09 0.04 0.99 2,135 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.16 9.19 11.0 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.54 0.30 0.05 0.36 — 2,116 2,116 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,130 2026 1.10 8.80 10.9 0.02 0.29 0.21 0.51 0.27 0.05 0.32 — 2,109 2,109 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,123 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.50 4.14 4.84 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.19 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.19 928 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 99 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
12 / 86
2026 0.73 1.99 2.50 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 477 477 0.02 0.01 0.10 480 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.09 0.76 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 154 2026 0.13 0.36 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 79.0 79.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 79.5
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.55 14.4 15.8 0.03 0.64 2.85 3.49 0.59 1.36 1.95 — 2,943 2,943 0.12 0.08 1.16 2,970 2026 17.7 8.78 11.0 0.02 0.29 0.21 0.51 0.27 0.05 0.32 — 2,121 2,121 0.09 0.04 0.99 2,135 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.16 9.19 11.0 0.02 0.33 0.21 0.54 0.30 0.05 0.36 — 2,116 2,116 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,130 2026 1.10 8.80 10.9 0.02 0.29 0.21 0.51 0.27 0.05 0.32 — 2,109 2,109 0.09 0.04 0.03 2,123 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.50 4.14 4.84 0.01 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.19 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.19 928 2026 0.73 1.99 2.50 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 477 477 0.02 0.01 0.10 480 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.09 0.76 0.88 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 154 2026 0.13 0.36 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 79.0 79.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 79.5
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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 100 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
13 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.45 1.19 13.3 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 14.7 3,162 3,177 1.63 0.11 9.47 3,261 Mit. 2.45 1.19 13.3 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 5.09 3,159 3,164 0.67 0.11 9.47 3,223 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 65% < 0.5% < 0.5% 59% 1% — 1%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.19 1.28 10.7 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 14.7 3,033 3,048 1.64 0.12 0.44 3,125 Mit. 2.19 1.28 10.7 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 5.09 3,030 3,035 0.68 0.12 0.44 3,088 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 65% < 0.5% < 0.5% 59% 1% — 1%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.14 1.16 10.5 0.02 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 0.53 0.56 14.7 2,787 2,802 1.62 0.11 3.80 2,878 Mit. 2.14 1.16 10.5 0.02 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 0.53 0.56 5.09 2,784 2,789 0.66 0.11 3.80 2,841 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 65% < 0.5% < 0.5% 59% 1% — 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.39 0.21 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 2.44 461 464 0.27 0.02 0.63 477 Mit. 0.39 0.21 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.84 461 462 0.11 0.02 0.63 470 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 65% < 0.5% < 0.5% 59% 1% — 1%
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 101 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
14 / 86
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 1.53 1.08 11.3 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,762 2,762 0.13 0.10 9.26 2,806 Area 0.91 0.02 1.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.21 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.56 14.9 17.5 0.26 0.01 — 26.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.2 0.00 12.2 1.22 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.45 1.19 13.3 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 14.7 3,162 3,177 1.63 0.11 9.47 3,261 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.50 1.19 10.6 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,640 2,640 0.14 0.11 0.24 2,676 Area 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.56 14.9 17.5 0.26 0.01 — 26.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.2 0.00 12.2 1.22 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.19 1.28 10.7 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 14.7 3,033 3,048 1.64 0.12 0.44 3,125 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.06 9.53 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.11 0.02 0.53 0.55 — 2,391 2,391 0.12 0.10 3.60 2,427 Area 0.80 0.01 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.05 3.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.06 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.56 14.9 17.5 0.26 0.01 — 26.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 12.2 0.00 12.2 1.22 0.00 — 42.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.14 1.16 10.5 0.02 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 0.53 0.56 14.7 2,787 2,802 1.62 0.11 3.80 2,878 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 102 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
15 / 86
Mobile 0.24 0.19 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 396 396 0.02 0.02 0.60 402 Area 0.15 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Energy < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 62.6 62.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.42 2.47 2.89 0.04 < 0.005 — 4.30 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 0.00 2.01 0.20 0.00 — 7.04 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.39 0.21 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 2.44 461 464 0.27 0.02 0.63 477
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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.53 1.08 11.3 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,762 2,762 0.13 0.10 9.26 2,806 Area 0.91 0.02 1.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.21 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.05 11.9 14.0 0.21 0.01 — 20.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.30 0.00 — 10.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.45 1.19 13.3 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 5.09 3,159 3,164 0.67 0.11 9.47 3,223 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.50 1.19 10.6 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,640 2,640 0.14 0.11 0.24 2,676 Area 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.05 11.9 14.0 0.21 0.01 — 20.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.30 0.00 — 10.6 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 103 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
16 / 86
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.19 1.28 10.7 0.03 0.03 2.36 2.39 0.03 0.60 0.63 5.09 3,030 3,035 0.68 0.12 0.44 3,088 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.33 1.06 9.53 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.11 0.02 0.53 0.55 — 2,391 2,391 0.12 0.10 3.60 2,427 Area 0.80 0.01 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.05 3.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.06 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 378 378 0.02 < 0.005 — 380 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.05 11.9 14.0 0.21 0.01 — 20.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.30 0.00 — 10.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 2.14 1.16 10.5 0.02 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 0.53 0.56 5.09 2,784 2,789 0.66 0.11 3.80 2,841 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.24 0.19 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 396 396 0.02 0.02 0.60 402 Area 0.15 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Energy < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 62.6 62.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 1.98 2.32 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.44 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 — 1.76 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.39 0.21 1.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 0.84 461 462 0.11 0.02 0.63 470
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 104 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
17 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.76 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.43 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 331 331 0.02 0.05 0.72 347 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 105 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
18 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.28 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.03 1.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 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 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15
3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.08 0.76 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 106 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
19 / 86
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.44 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.43 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 — 331 331 0.02 0.05 0.72 347 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.28 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.03 1.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 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 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15
3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 107 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
20 / 86
Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.31 12.1 12.1 0.02 0.56 — 0.56 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 108 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
21 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 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 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
3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.31 12.1 12.1 0.02 0.56 — 0.56 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 109 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
22 / 86
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 110 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
23 / 86
—————————————————Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 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 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
3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 111 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
24 / 86
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.99 0.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 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 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 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 112 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
25 / 86
3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.02 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 113 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
26 / 86
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.99 0.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.01 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 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 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
3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 114 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
27 / 86
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.36 3.05 3.42 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 613 613 0.02 < 0.005 — 615 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.56 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 205 205 0.01 0.01 0.77 208 Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.31 126 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 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 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 115 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
28 / 86
—————————————————Average
Daily
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 66.6 66.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 67.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.1 41.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 43.0 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.81 6.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.11 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
3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.36 3.05 3.42 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 613 613 0.02 < 0.005 — 615 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 116 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
29 / 86
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.56 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 205 205 0.01 0.01 0.77 208 Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.31 126 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.07 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 194 194 0.01 0.01 0.02 196 Vendor < 0.005 0.17 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 0.01 0.02 0.01 126 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 66.6 66.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 67.6 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.1 41.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 43.0 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.81 6.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.11 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
3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 117 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
30 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.21 1.79 2.08 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 377 377 0.02 < 0.005 — 378 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.33 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 62.4 62.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.6 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.70 204 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.29 124 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 118 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
31 / 86
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 124 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 40.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.0 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.64 6.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.74 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.11 4.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.30 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
3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 119 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
32 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.21 1.79 2.08 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 377 377 0.02 < 0.005 — 378 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.33 0.38 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 62.4 62.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 62.6 Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 201 201 0.01 0.01 0.70 204 Vendor < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.29 124 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 190 190 0.01 0.01 0.02 192 Vendor < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 119 119 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 124 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 40.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 26.0 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 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 120 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
33 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.64 6.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.74 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.11 4.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.30 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
3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
0.47 4.41 6.48 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 991 991 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 121 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
34 / 86
0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 116 116 0.01 < 0.005 0.41 118 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.03 3.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 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 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
3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
0.47 4.41 6.48 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 991 991 0.04 0.01 — 995 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 122 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
35 / 86
Paving 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 116 116 0.01 < 0.005 0.41 118 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.03 3.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 123 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
36 / 86
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 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 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
3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location 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-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
17.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.48 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 124 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
37 / 86
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 40.8 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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 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 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
3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 125 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
38 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
17.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.48 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 40.8 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 126 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
39 / 86
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 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 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 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 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 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
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.76 0.54 5.64 0.01 0.01 1.19 1.20 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,390 1,390 0.06 0.05 4.66 1,412 General
Office
Building
0.06 0.04 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 106 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 127 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
40 / 86
Strip
Mall
0.71 0.50 5.18 0.01 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.27 0.28 — 1,268 1,268 0.06 0.05 4.25 1,288 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.53 1.08 11.3 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,762 2,762 0.13 0.10 9.26 2,806 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.74 0.60 5.31 0.01 0.01 1.19 1.20 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,328 1,328 0.07 0.06 0.12 1,346 General
Office
Building
0.06 0.05 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 99.9 99.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 101 Strip
Mall
0.70 0.55 4.89 0.01 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.27 0.28 — 1,212 1,212 0.06 0.05 0.11 1,229 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.50 1.19 10.6 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,640 2,640 0.14 0.11 0.24 2,676 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.12 0.10 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.30 201 General
Office
Building
0.01 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 Strip
Mall
0.12 0.09 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 185 185 0.01 0.01 0.28 188 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.24 0.19 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 396 396 0.02 0.02 0.60 402 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 128 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
41 / 86
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.76 0.54 5.64 0.01 0.01 1.19 1.20 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,390 1,390 0.06 0.05 4.66 1,412 General
Office
Building
0.06 0.04 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 106 Strip
Mall
0.71 0.50 5.18 0.01 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.27 0.28 — 1,268 1,268 0.06 0.05 4.25 1,288 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.53 1.08 11.3 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,762 2,762 0.13 0.10 9.26 2,806 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.74 0.60 5.31 0.01 0.01 1.19 1.20 0.01 0.30 0.31 — 1,328 1,328 0.07 0.06 0.12 1,346 General
Office
Building
0.06 0.05 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 99.9 99.9 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 101 Strip
Mall
0.70 0.55 4.89 0.01 0.01 1.08 1.09 0.01 0.27 0.28 — 1,212 1,212 0.06 0.05 0.11 1,229 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 1.50 1.19 10.6 0.03 0.02 2.36 2.38 0.02 0.60 0.62 — 2,640 2,640 0.14 0.11 0.24 2,676 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 129 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
42 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
0.12 0.10 0.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 198 198 0.01 0.01 0.30 201 General
Office
Building
0.01 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.6 12.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.8 Strip
Mall
0.12 0.09 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 185 185 0.01 0.01 0.28 188 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.24 0.19 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.39 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 396 396 0.02 0.02 0.60 402
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 — 124
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.1
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 130 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
43 / 86
40.8—< 0.005< 0.00540.740.7———————————Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 262 0.01 < 0.005 — 263
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 — 124
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.1
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.7 40.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 262 0.01 < 0.005 — 263
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.65 6.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.45
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.74 6.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.5 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 131 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
44 / 86
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 — 124
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.1
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.7 40.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 262 0.01 < 0.005 — 263
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 124 124 0.01 < 0.005 — 124
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 56.9 56.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.1
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.7 40.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 262 262 0.01 < 0.005 — 263
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 132 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
45 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.6
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.65 6.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.67
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.42 9.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.45
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.74 6.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.3 43.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.5
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.9 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.55 5.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.56 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 133 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
46 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.9 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.55 5.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.56 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.55 2.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.56 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.92 0.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.92 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4
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
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 134 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
47 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.9 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.55 5.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.56 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.9 General
Office
Building
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.55 5.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.56 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 0.01 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 117 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 135 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
48 / 86
2.56—< 0.005< 0.0052.552.55—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005< 0.005General Office
Building
Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.92 0.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.92 Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
0.00 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 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.4
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.22 0.02 1.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.21 Total 0.91 0.02 1.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.21 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 136 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
49 / 86
Consum
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.69 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Total 0.15 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 137 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
50 / 86
6.21—< 0.005< 0.0056.196.19—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0051.960.020.22Landsca pe
Total 0.91 0.02 1.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 6.19 6.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.21 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.69 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.02 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 Total 0.15 < 0.005 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 138 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
51 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.48 8.65 10.1 0.15 < 0.005 — 15.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.51 2.96 3.47 0.05 < 0.005 — 5.16
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.57 3.29 3.85 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.73
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.56 14.9 17.5 0.26 0.01 — 26.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.48 8.65 10.1 0.15 < 0.005 — 15.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.51 2.96 3.47 0.05 < 0.005 — 5.16
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.57 3.29 3.85 0.06 < 0.005 — 5.73
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.56 14.9 17.5 0.26 0.01 — 26.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.25 1.43 1.68 0.03 < 0.005 — 2.49
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 139 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
52 / 86
0.85—< 0.0050.010.570.490.08——————————General
Office
Building
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.54 0.64 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.95
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.42 2.47 2.89 0.04 < 0.005 — 4.30
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.18 6.92 8.10 0.12 < 0.005 — 12.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.41 2.37 2.78 0.04 < 0.005 — 4.13
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.45 2.63 3.08 0.05 < 0.005 — 4.59
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.05 11.9 14.0 0.21 0.01 — 20.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 140 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
53 / 86
12.0—< 0.0050.128.106.921.18——————————Apartme
nts
Low Rise
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.41 2.37 2.78 0.04 < 0.005 — 4.13
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.45 2.63 3.08 0.05 < 0.005 — 4.59
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.05 11.9 14.0 0.21 0.01 — 20.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.20 1.15 1.34 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.99
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.39 0.46 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.68
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.44 0.51 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.76
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 1.98 2.32 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.44
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 141 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
54 / 86
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 9.14 0.00 9.14 0.91 0.00 — 32.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.08 0.00 — 2.63
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 2.26 0.00 2.26 0.23 0.00 — 7.92
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.2 0.00 12.2 1.22 0.00 — 42.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 9.14 0.00 9.14 0.91 0.00 — 32.0
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.08 0.00 — 2.63
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 2.26 0.00 2.26 0.23 0.00 — 7.92
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 12.2 0.00 12.2 1.22 0.00 — 42.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.51 0.00 1.51 0.15 0.00 — 5.30
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 142 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
55 / 86
0.44—0.000.010.120.000.12——————————General
Office
Building
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.31
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 0.00 2.01 0.20 0.00 — 7.04
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 2.29 0.00 2.29 0.23 0.00 — 8.00
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.66
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.06 0.00 — 1.98
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.30 0.00 — 10.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 143 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
56 / 86
8.00—0.000.232.290.002.29——————————Apartme
nts
Low Rise
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 — 0.66
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.06 0.00 — 1.98
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 3.04 0.00 3.04 0.30 0.00 — 10.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.04 0.00 — 1.32
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.00 0.03 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.11
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 — 0.33
Unenclo
sed
P
arking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 — 1.76
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 144 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
57 / 86
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 145 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
58 / 86
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Lo
w Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 146 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
59 / 86
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 147 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
60 / 86
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 148 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
61 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 149 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
62 / 86
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 150 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
63 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 151 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
64 / 86
—————————————————Sequest
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 152 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
65 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 153 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
66 / 86
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 6/3/2025 7/1/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/2/2025 7/4/2025 5.00 2.00 — July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 154 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
67 / 86
Grading Grading 7/5/2025 7/10/2025 5.00 4.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/11/2025 4/17/2026 5.00 200 — Paving Paving 4/18/2026 5/2/2026 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/3/2026 5/17/2026 5.00 10.0 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Sa
ws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 155 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
68 / 86
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mix
ers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Sa
ws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 156 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
69 / 86
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mix
ers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.60 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 21.6 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.83 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 157 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
70 / 86
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.33 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.60 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 158 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
71 / 86
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 21.6 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 4.83 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.33 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 47,223 15,741 8,673 2,797 565
5.6. Dust Mitigation
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 159 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
72 / 86
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square
Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,000 —
Site Preparation — — 1.88 0.00 —
Grading — — 4.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Low Rise — 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0.22 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 160 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
73 / 86
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Low
Rise
168 187 144 61,188 1,512 1,682 1,297 549,564
General Office
Building
14.6 3.32 1.05 4,037 126 28.7 9.08 34,910
Strip Mall 177 168 81.7 59,249 1,533 1,454 707 512,403
Unenclosed
P
arking Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Low
Rise
168 187 144 61,188 1,512 1,682 1,297 549,564
General Office
Building
14.6 3.32 1.05 4,037 126 28.7 9.08 34,910
Strip Mall 177 168 81.7 59,249 1,533 1,454 707 512,403
Unenclosed
P
arking Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 161 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
74 / 86
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
47223 15,741 8,673 2,797 565
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 162 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
75 / 86
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Low Rise 76,851 589 0.0330 0.0040 298,439
General Office Building 24,892 589 0.0330 0.0040 48,035 Strip Mall 35,258 589 0.0330 0.0040 17,310
Unenclosed Parking Structure 25,229 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Low Rise 76,851 589 0.0330 0.0040 298,439
General Office Building 24,892 589 0.0330 0.0040 48,035 Strip Mall 35,258 589 0.0330 0.0040 17,310
Unenclosed Parking Structure 25,229 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 163 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
76 / 86
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 772,928 18,265
General Office Building 266,601 3,736
Strip Mall 296,290 3,736
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0.00 2,989
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 618,342 14,612
General Office Building 213,280 2,989
Strip Mall 237,032 2,989
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0.00 2,391
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 17.0 —
General Office Building 1.40 —
Strip Mall 4.20 —
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 4.24 —
General Office Building 0.35 —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 164 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
77 / 86
Strip Mall 1.05 —
Unenclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other
residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refr
igerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Household
refr
igerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refr
igerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and
freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other
residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 165 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
78 / 86
1.000.000.600.121,430R-134aApartments Low Rise Household refr
igerators and/or
freezers
General Office
Building
Household
refr
igerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and
heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refr
igerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and
freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 166 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
79 / 86
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 167 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
80 / 86
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes
GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 8.12 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.70 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from obser
ved historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if receiv
ed over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider
inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of
climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 168 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
81 / 86
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing
the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures
.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing
the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures
.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 169 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
82 / 86
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 29.9
AQ-PM 44.7
AQ-DPM 87.8
Drinking Water 10.4
Lead Risk Housing 46.8
Pesticides 23.2
Toxic Releases 14.1
Traffic 85.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 59.6
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 80.2
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 10.6
Cardio-vascular 30.4
Low Birth Weights 11.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.2
Housing 45.6
Linguistic 18.1
Poverty 66.4
Unemployment 37.7
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 170 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
83 / 86
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 43.59040164
Employed 47.8121391
Median HI 35.63454382
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 53.18875914
High school enrollment 3.028358784
Preschool enrollment 11.35634544
Transportation —
Auto Access 33.27345053
Active commuting 58.38573078
Social —
2-parent households 22.80251508
Voting 60.81098422
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 33.06813807
Park access 56.25561401
Retail density 80.14885153
Supermarket access 72.16732965
Tree canopy 38.05979725
Housing —
Homeownership 10.75324009
Housing habitability 43.65456179
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 94.44373155 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 62.20967535
Uncrowded housing 34.55665341
Health Outcomes —
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 171 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
84 / 86
Insured adults 20.10778904
Arthritis 29.1
Asthma ER Admissions 76.3
High Blood Pressure 63.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 24.3
Asthma 46.1
Coronary Heart Disease 23.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 58.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 70.8
Cognitively Disabled 39.7
Physically Disabled 49.3
Heart Attack ER Admissions 87.2
Mental Health Not Good 44.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 54.6
Pedestrian Injuries 43.7
Physical Health Not Good 49.1
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 10.6
Current Smoker 43.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 51.7
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.6
SLR Inundation Area 54.1
Children 69.7
Elderly 26.2
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 172 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
85 / 86
English Speaking 38.1
Foreign-born 29.6
Outdoor Workers 36.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 25.2
Traffic Density 95.7
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 54.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 71.6
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 29.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 173 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 The Roosevelt Detailed Report, 12/2/2024
86 / 86
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Hearths No fireplaces or hearths.
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 174 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3 Community Development Department | 1635 Faraday Ave. | Carlsbad, CA 92008 | www.carlsbadca.gov Density Bonus
IB-112
This bulletin outlines the development allowances
provided under Govt. Code §65915, commonly
referred to as state density bonus law. The bulletin is only intended to summarize the key provisions of
state law rather than cite them in total. The
document has been updated to include recent state
legislation, including AB 1287, the “middle-income
homes density bonus law,” which became effective
January 1, 2024.
BACKGROUND
State density bonus law allows a developer to
increase density (total number of homes) allowed on
a property above the maximum set under a city’s
local land use plan (Carlsbad General Plan) by as
much as 100%. In addition, qualifying applicants can
also receive reductions in required development
standards such as setbacks and height limits when
those standards prevent the applicant from achieving
the density allowed under state law. Other tools
include reduced or no parking requirements for
certain project types.
In exchange for these benefits, a certain number of
the new dwelling units within the development
project must be reserved for lower-income
households, seniors, or the other eligible affordable
housing projects.
Pursuant to Government Code §65915(a)(1), each
jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that specifies
how compliance with density bonus law will be
implemented. Failure to adopt an ordinance does not
relieve the city from complying with state density
bonus law. As such, the city’s adopted ordinance,
Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.86, references state
mandates where appropriate (as opposed to
repeating state code requirements) and focuses more
on the permit processing requirements for density
bonus applications.
ELIGIBILITY
Any housing development that proposes five or more
units and incorporates at least one of the following is eligible for a density bonus. Note: Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) may be included as part of a single-family or multi-family development, but ADUs do not count
towards/against the total density allowed under state
density bonus. Refer to info-bulletin IB-111 for more
on ADUs.
• At lea
st 5% of the housing units are restricted to
very low-income residents.
• At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to
low-income residents.
• At least 10% of the units in a for-sale housing
development are restricted for moderate-
income.
• 100% of the housing units (other than manager’s
units) are restricted affordable with a maximum
of 20% of the units being moderate.
• At least 10% of the housing units are rent
restricted at the very low-income level for
transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or
homeless persons.
• At least 20% of the housing units are for low-
income college students in housing dedicated for
full-time students at accredited colleges.
• The project donates at least one acre of land to
the city for very low-income units, and the land
Exhibit 7
July 29, 2025
Item #13 Page 175 of 188
Docusign Envelope ID: C67B0BCC-71D9-4569-B459-7771E3874ED3