Agenda packet — Escondido City Council, August 5, 2026 (part 6 of 9)

1290
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -11- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. Would the project:
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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
2007 Initial Study
The project area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds and amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air locally, and throughout the basin, and the dispersal rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind, speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants (which is affected by inversions) and the local topography.

The air basin currently is designated a state and federal non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter.

However, in the SDAB, part of the ozone contamination is derived from the Los Angeles area South Coast Air Basin during periods of westerly winds (Santa Ana condition) when air pollutants are windborne over the ocean, drift to the south and eventually are blown easterly into the SDAB. Local agencies can control neither the source nor transportation of pollutants from outside the basin. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) policy; therefore, has been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination.

For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the project's consistency with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality. Local air-quality impacts are directly related to the number of vehicle trips and operation levels on adjacent streets and intersections. For planning purposes, the APCD assumed the City's General Plan designation of Estate I in calculating air quality impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines, a project normally is considered to have a significant air quality impact if it violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air-quality violation, or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.

Emissions resulting from developing the site would be directly related to the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the project. The increase of 5 units would have an incremental impact to basin-wide air quality.

Considering the cumulative impacts of thousands of sources, the impact attributed to the project is immeasurably small on a regional scale and will not cause ambient air-quality standards to be exceeded.

Since development would not materially degrade the levels of service on adjacent streets and intersections, and would not violate daily emissions thresholds, the project will not have a significant impact on air quality and no mitigation measures are required.

Construction-Related Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of constructionrelated air emission include:

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 11 of 465 ends

1291
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -12- City of Escondido, California • Fugitive dust from grading activities;
• Construction equipment exhaust;
• Construction-related trips by worker, delivery trucks and material-hauling trucks; and • Construction-related power consumption.

Maximum daily emissions of NOx during construction periods are not projected to exceed City thresholds or APCD standards based on similar studies performed for similar size grading operations. Since construction is a one-time temporary activity, and because average daily construction emissions are projected to be below thresholds of significance, operation of equipment during project construction is not anticipated to result in substantial air quality impacts. Dust from grading and other site preparation would generate particulate matter emission; however, with appropriate use of grading and operation procedures as described in the attached mitigation measures (in conformance with APCD Best Management Practice for dust control), the project would not generate significant particulate matter or dust.

The City of Escondido Grading Ordinance and erosion control requirements include provisions for dust control to reduce impacts to air quality during grading and construction activities. At a minimum, these ordinances and provisions require projects to perform regular watering and timely re-vegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the dust and airborne nuisance impacts to off-site receptors. Emissions from construction equipment, worker and delivery and material-hauling trucks, and construction-related power consumption would be temporary and would result in an extremely small contribution to the SDAB; and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.

As stated above, mitigation for air quality required preparation of a site-specific analysis and report to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties from adverse air quality impacts which may result from construction. A site-specific analysis was prepared and is summarized below; thus, satisfying this mitigation measure.

Proposed Project
Information within this section was obtained in part from the California Emission Estimator Model version 2022.1. The output file is provided as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is zoned RE-40 which supports low density single-family residential development.

SANDAG’s Regional Plan population, employee population and housing estimates for the years 2020 and 2035 was compared to the estimated increase in population, employees, and housing generated by the proposed project. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and, as addressed below, the proposed project emissions would not conflict with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), AQMP and RAQS. Therefore, as the Final IS/MND disclosed regarding the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. The thresholds listed in Table 1 are screening-level thresholds used to evaluate whether proposed-project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality.

Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissions-based thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for ozone. This Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 12 of 465 ends

1292
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -13- City of Escondido, California approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations associated with individual projects precursors (VOC 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 1, 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 air quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.

Table 1
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 Day 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
The estimated maximum daily construction and operating emissions are summarized in Table 2 below. As shown, the Project construction-source emissions and operating emissions would not exceed San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) regional thresholds for daily emission. Thus, a less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. Sensitive receivers include the single-family residences located adjacent to and proximal to the site. In evaluating impacts to sensitive receptors, the two primary emissions of concern are diesel particulate matter and CO. The proposed project would generate approximately 50 daily trips (i.e., 10 trips per unit) and five trips during the peak hour. Per the City of Escondido Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2021), projects that generate less than 200 daily trips may be presumed to have a less-than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project is not expected to cause a traffic impact or otherwise impede circulation within the project area and at proximal intersections.

Consequently, sensitive receptors would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by Projectrelated traffic.

Toxic Air Contaminants. The proposed project would be constructed within an RE-40 zone and require a common mix of equipment. As shown, construction emissions would not violate SDAPCD daily construction emission standards. With respect to operation, the proposed project would not include uses that cause or contribute to TAC emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 13 of 465 ends

1293
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -14- City of Escondido, California Table 2
Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions
Project Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction – 2026 6.2 12.9 15.0 0.02 3.4 1.8
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Operating Emission –
Proposed Project 0.04 0.12 1.8 0.003 0.3 0.08
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, LLC., (March 2025) (Appendix A). expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction; and thus, is considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The 2007 Initial Study does not specifically address odors; however, as described herein, impacts would be less than significant.

14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 14 of 465 ends

1294
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -15- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy/ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July, 2024.(Appendix B). 2007 Initial Study
A series of biological reports dated 6/19/06, 11/20/06, and 2/14/07 were prepared by the Chambers Group to augment the Biological Resource Assessment conducted in 1991 for the subject property. Taken in combination, the reports conclude that the 6.28-acre parcel is composed mostly of non-native grassland with a few oaks in the southeastern portion of the site and a small isolated patch of coastal sage scrub along a fence line adjacent to Hamilton Lane. Based on information detailed in Appendix B, there are currently no sensitive wildlife species present on the site. The biological resource reports concluded that development of the site under the 2007 proposal would necessitate the removal of 3.06 acres of non-native grassland, four oak trees and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Proposed mitigation would bring the impacts to biological resources to less than significant.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the USFWS? Less than Significant. The parcel is primarily Disturbed Habitat (DH) composed of annual non-native grasses and non-native vegetation, reflecting the history of agricultural use and repeated mowing for weed abatement.

Due to the significant disturbance and a shift from the original vegetation composition, resilient and fastgrowing non-native species and grasses now outcompete the native flora including several brome grasses (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus and B. diandrus) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata), as well as non-native forbs, such as mustards (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees (Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum).

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 15 of 465 ends

1295
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -16- City of Escondido, California Despite the dominance of non-native species, the parcel supports some native species, predominantly annual forbs such as Menzies' Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Narrow Leaf Bedstraw (Galium angustifolium) and a few diminutive perennial species including Coast Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) which have clearly been mowed annually. Additionally, several large piles of mulch have been placed on the property, with some already spread. These piles consist primarily of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) material, laden with seeds that are now sprouting abundantly.

Animals observed included species of native and non-native Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), Great Basin fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) on the rocks, a dead gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), evidence of Coyote (Canis latrans), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and a woodrat nest (Neotoma sp.), and common birds including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (house finch), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Larger birds were using the offsite trees in the vicinity, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicansis) was seen flying overhead in the area.

No special status plants or animals were observed at the time of the survey nor is the on-site habitat expected to support sensitive species.

As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would require mitigation for direct impacts to 3.06 acres of nonnative grassland and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Neither of these habitat types remain on the project site under current conditions. The property was cleared as requested in weed abatement orders issued by the City of Escondido on May 26, 2021, and August 12, 2025 (see Appendix C). Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and less than what was identified in the 2007 Initial Study. However, mitigation measures addressing impacts to these habitat types in the 2007 Initial Study and listed above in Section 9, Summary of Original Project, remain applicable and would require implementation with approval of the proposed Project.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The site is vacant and does not contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. The proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild Service. The project site is void of riparian corridors and sensitive habitat. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, exist on-site or immediately adjoining the site. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The project site is disturbed and located within an urban area. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist within the immediate project area. No impacts to migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would occur.

Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 16 of 465 ends

1296
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -17- City of Escondido, California policy/ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Escondido Municipal Code regulates removal of trees identified as Mature or Heritage (i.e., Protected), trees (Sec 33-1069). Mature and Protected trees are defined in the Escondido Municipal Code Sec 33-1052 as:
 Mature tree is any self-supporting woody perennial plant, native or ornamental, with a single welldefined stem or multiple stems supporting a crown of branches. The single stem, or one of the multiple stems of any mature oak tree (genus Quercus), shall have a diameter 4 inches or greater when measured at 4½ feet diameter at breast height (DBH) above the tree’s natural grade. All other mature trees shall have a diameter of 8 inches DBH, or greater, for a single stem or one of the multiple stems.
 Protected tree is any oak (genus Quercus) which has a 10-inch or greater DBH, or any other species or individual specimen listed on the local historic register, or determined to substantially contribute to the historic character of a property or structure listed on the local historic register, pursuant to Article 40 of the Escondido Zoning Code.

A total of 17 mature and protected trees are located on-site. Most of the trees on site are in the southern portion of the site. Two trees are in the west and center of the site, one a small black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and the other, a Heritage coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The southern portion of the site contains six Heritage coast live oak trees, three mature coast live oak trees and three mature non-native trees. The remaining four trees do not meet the Protected tree criteria.

Several Mature and Heritage Trees are located on Lots 2, 4, and 5. The proposed project could potentially remove two Heritage coast live oak trees located within the pad of Lot 4 while avoiding all other oak trees. A coast live oak tree on the boundary of Lots 4 and 5 would be avoided. Two additional Mature olive trees would also be removed by grading Lot 5. Lastly, a black locust tree meets neither Heritage nor Mature tree criterion, would be removed to create the retention basin. All the impacted Heritage or Mature trees are far from the three roads that border the parcel and the loss of four trees would not significantly change views for area residents or the aesthetics of the area. It is expected that future homeowners will plant trees around their homes that will offset any aesthetic impacts from removal of the four trees. While multiple trees would be removed, the Project would be in compliance with City’s current Municipal Code requirements for trees.

As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project would require removal of four Live Oak trees; thus, requiring on-site relocation or replacement of the four existing Live Oak trees and planting of four additional Live Oak trees. The current project as proposed would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for removal of heritage and mature trees. However, removal of any Live Oak tree would require replacement of that tree plus planting of one additional live oak tree as stated in the 2007 Initial Study mitigation measures for biological resources. Impacts would be similar to what was identified for the project as proposed in 2007.

Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City is no longer participating in the local regional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort and the site was not in a Focused Planning Area of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). Thus, the proposed Project would neither impact regional conservation planning efforts under the NCCP or MHCP, and because of its location and features, development would not impact any future regional conservation planning efforts. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 17 of 465 ends

1297
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -18- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
2007 Initial Study
The undeveloped site currently has only some minor indications that farming and citrus grove activity took place on the property in the past. The hilltop and surrounded land is now vacant. The property does not appear on the list of Archaeological Resources Sites; therefore, it is assumed the proposed development would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources.

Proposed Project
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Phase I Cultural Resources Report prepared by South Environmental, LLC, May 2025 (Appendix D). a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
No Impact. On March 27, 2025, South Environmental performed an in-person cultural resources records search of the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for San Diego County. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Resource Directory and Historic Built Environment Resource Directory lists. The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5 of CEQA?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As stated above, The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. These are summarized as follows:

SD-08588. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed by the City of Escondido in 1980. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a cultural resources inventory that identified an archaeological site within the treatment plant site to be avoided by its Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 18 of 465 ends

1298
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -19- City of Escondido, California expansion. The study included a records search but no pedestrian survey. Adherence to State and Regional Historic Preservation regulations was recommended to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. However, the identified archaeological site is nowhere near the current project site, located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 78. The EIR’s broad study area included the current project site but did not include archaeological surveys within or near the project site.

SD-08596. The Results of a Cultural Resource Survey of the Escondido Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates in 1992. This study inventoried cultural resources within and adjacent to the 24.2-mile project alignment. A record search found 115 prehistoric sites and two historic sites near the project alignment, but no cultural resources were discovered within the study’s project boundaries. The entire project alignment was surveyed. Where terrain permitted, the project alignment was intensively surveyed with 20-foot linear transects, and areas with steep grades, heavy foliage, structures, or pavement that inhibited access or ground visibility were surveyed at a reconnaissance level. This approach resulted in approximately 25 percent of the project alignment being intensively surveyed. The eastern half of the current project site falls with the 100-foot buffer zone of the Smith 1992 project alignment; however, no details are provided that indicate the current project site was intensively surveyed. Archaeological monitoring was recommended for certain areas deemed sensitive but not the entirety of the project alignment. Standard mitigation measures were also recommended.

SD-010211. The Results of Archaeological Testing at CA-SDI-12525 Report was prepared by Susan Underbrink of Chambers Group, Inc. in 2006. This multicomponent resource was originally recorded by Del James, Steven Briggs, and Scott Campbell of ERC Environmental and Energy Services in 1991. The prehistoric component was initially described as possessing “numerous slicks on 17 different granite bedrock outcrops,” more than 20 chipped stone flakes, two manos, one metate fragment, and more than 50 marine shell fragments. An L-shaped concrete foundation and a subterranean concrete foundation was also referenced. It was stated that the area around the bedrock outcrops had been subject to disking but also estimated that the subsurface appeared to retain good integrity.

Susan Underbrink (2006) of Chambers Group, Inc. conducted resurvey and archaeological testing of P-37- 012535 for CRHR eligibility evaluation in May 2006. Underbrink recorded 20 bedrock milling features (labeled as Features A-T) with 27 milling surfaces, all flush or shallow slicks. Underbrink noted that many of the milling surfaces were heavily eroded and that some of the features identified in 1991 could not be relocated.

Underbrink excavated 16 shovel test pits and two 1-meter by 1-meter test units to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters. From the excavations she collected nine metavolcanic chipped stone flakes or shatter, one quartz flake, three small marine shell fragments of unidentified genus or species, one burnt large mammal bone, and one metal plate that states, “American Automobile Owners Association.” Test Unit 1 produced 10 of the 15 artifacts and ecofacts between 0-30 centimeters of depth. No artifacts from the surface were recorded or collected. Underbrink described the site as a food processing site with a paucity of subsurface cultural material lacking diagnostic artifacts or evidence of habitation. The report (Underbrink 2006) stated that the research potential of P-37-012535 has been exhausted and the site was recommended not eligible for the CRHR” and no further work is necessary beyond archaeological monitoring.

Native American Scoping
A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on March 21, 2025. The NAHC responded to the request on April 4, 2025, and reported positive result and recommended contacting the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The NAHC also recommended contacting 31 Native American tribal representatives for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project.

South Environmental sent letters to each contact provided by the NAHC on April 7, 2025, and sent follow-up emails on April 17, 2025, to non-responsive contacts.

Four tribal contacts have responded to the outreach letters to date. The Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians stated that the area is archaeologically sensitive with known sites recorded Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 19 of 465 ends

1299
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -20- City of Escondido, California within the vicinity. These tribes, along with the San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians expressed concern about potential impacts the project may have on local tangible cultural heritage and declared interest in entering formal government-to-government consultation.

Field Survey Results
On April 22, 2025, South Environmental conducted an intensive-level survey of the project site. The site was surveyed using transects spaced approximately ten meters apart throughout the site. Areas with exposed ground surface were examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).

The previously recorded multicomponent archaeological site P-37-012525 (CA-SDI-12525/H) referenced above was relocated and one medium-grained metavolcanic flake was observed within the archaeological site. Some of the previously recorded bedrock milling slicks were relocated; however, others appeared to have eroded through weathering since the 2006 recordation and testing. No artifacts or other evidence was identified to change the previous characterization of site P-37-012525. No additional archaeological or historic built environment resources were observed during the survey beyond the previously recorded and tested P37-012525. Based on these findings, no further archaeological testing of P-37-012525 is recommended.

Further, the current findings are consistent with the previous recommendation that the site lacks significant data potential and is not eligible for CRHR listing.

No Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping; however, the Native American scoping identified the project vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources as referenced above. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.

Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a condition of approval for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. With implementation of Condition of Approval (COA) CUL-1, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

CUL-1. Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. Based on the sensitivity of the project site and the presence of P-37-012525, archaeological and Native American monitoring should be considered at the City’s discretion and conducted during all project-related ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading and excavation for and installation of foundations and utilities.

Within 30 days of the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the appropriate parties detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified. Any discoveries of cultural resources or human remains shall be addressed in accordance with the unanticipated discovery measures outlined below.

As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project was not expected to have any adverse impact to cultural or historic resources. Based on the current Phase I Cultural Resources Report, there is evidence that resources may occur on-site; and per existing protocol, monitoring during construction is recommended at the City’s discretion as a Condition of Approval. Implementation of this Condition of Approval does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would necessitate revisions to the 2007 Initial Study.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 20 of 465 ends

1300
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -21- City of Escondido, California c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant. There are no known grave sites within the project limits. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery, and shall complete the inspection within 24 of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the NAHC on the disposition of the remains. With implementation of existing regulations, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 2007 Initial Study.

14.6 Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of energy impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, the Project would temporarily consume energy for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Standard methods of earth moving, excavations, building construction, and paving are planned. The proposed construction activities do not include methods of construction which would result in inefficient or unnecessary use of energy resources. For operational energy use, the project would be required to meet CCR Title 24 building energy and California Green Building (CALGreen) Code standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels.

Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space or water heating) results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The 2022 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 21 of 465 ends

1301
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -22- City of Escondido, California performance standards—the energy budgets—that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.

CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial and commercial buildings) for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more.

All fuel calculations are based on the total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value calculated for each construction phase and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. Data are reported in annual metric tons of CO2e for the duration of each construction phase. Metric tons are converted to kilogram CO2e and then divided by a conversion factor used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate gallons of gasoline consumed based on carbon emissions. For the purpose of determining fuel demand, it was assumed that all worker vehicles would be use gasoline and all construction equipment would diesel-fueled. Deisel demand would be approximately 22,659 gallons. Demand for gasoline would be approximately 504 gallons. During operation, the project would generate demand for approximately 30,706 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 142,585 British Thermal Units (BTU) of natural gas annually. The annual gasoline demand generated by passenger vehicles visiting the site would be approximately 6,584 gallons.

Compliance with state Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No further Project-specific mitigation measures would be required. Implementation of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Impacts would be less than significant; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency statewide. Multiple state agencies, including CARB, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, CalRecycle, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Water Resources have developed regulatory and incentive programs that promote energy efficiency. Many of the measures are generally beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented by utility providers or manufacturers.

The project does not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy efficiency. The project would employ standard methods of construction and does not propose to create a project condition post-construction whereby a greater energy, relative to projects of a similar scope would occur. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.

As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant energy Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 22 of 465 ends

1302
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -23- City of Escondido, California impact.

Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
2007 Initial Study
The highest fill areas proposed are approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. The deepest cut areas are approximately 6 feet deep and located within the northern portion of the site. It is reasonably anticipated that conventional grading practices can be utilized to develop the site without the need for blasting. If blasting is required it would likely be limited to the central portion of the site and the contractor will be required to obtain the necessary permits and follow all City of Escondido procedures.

The site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The nearest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 11 miles to the west. Other nearby faults include the Elsinore-Julian Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding area based on accounts from other geotechnical investigations for projects developed in the area; therefore a significant geology and soils impact would not occur.

Proposed Project
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 23 of 465 ends

1303
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -24- City of Escondido, California involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. In 1972, the state passed the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Zoning Act to help identify areas subject to severe ground shaking. Earthquake faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it is included as an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (EFHZ), which indicated movement within the past 11,000 years. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults; thereby mitigating the hazard of fault ruptures. EFHZs identify the probability of ground rupture for future earthquakes. Where such zones are designated, no buildings or structures may be constructed on the trace of the fault. No EFHZs exist within the City of Escondido as reported in the City of Escondido General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Section 4.6, Geology/Soils. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un-weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times.

The San Jacinto Fault, Elsinore Fault and Rose Canyon Fault have the potential to result in seismic ground shaking within the proposed project area. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a “quicksand” type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. According to Figure 4.6-3 in the General Plan EIR, the project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. However, according to the According to Figure 4.6-4 in the General Plan EIR, the project is not located within a landslide hazard area. No impact would occur. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 24 of 465 ends

1304
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -25- City of Escondido, California Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and trenching during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The contractor will be required to comply with standard engineering practices for erosion control and implement applicable elements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during ground disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence, which can be caused by groundwater depletion, seismic activity, and other factors, refers to elevation changes of the land whether slow or sudden. The underlying geologic formations in the proposed project area are mostly granitic and have a very low potential of subsidence. No water extractions or similar practices are anticipated to be necessary that are typically associated with project-related subsidence effects. In addition, surface material that would be disrupted or displaced would be balanced and re-compacted on-site or removed. Adherence to standard engineering practices would result in less than significant impacts related to subsidence of the land. The site is generally flat. There are no steep slopes that could cause a landslide. As stated, there is no liquefaction potential in the project area. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No Impact. As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.6, Geology/Soils, certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansive soils are derived primarily from weathering of feldspar minerals and volcanic ash. The expansion and contraction of the soil varies with the soil moisture content (wet or dry), and can be aggravated by the way a property is maintained or irrigated.

Human activities can increase the moisture content of the soils, and the threat of expansive soil damage.

According to Figure 4.6-5 in the General Plan EIR, there is no known potential for expansive soils occurring in the project area. No impact would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the existing sewer system located along Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? No Impact. According to the City of Escondido General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, the geologic formation on the project site is comprised of granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages, mid-Cretaceous. Geologic formations that are composed entirely of volcanic or plutonic igneous rock, such as basalt or granite, do not have any potential for producing fossil remains. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 25 of 465 ends

1305
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -26- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions are evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).

The City of Escondido approved a Climate Action Plan in March 2021. This CAP meets the criteria identified in Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, is considered a “qualified” CAP and may be used for the specific purpose of streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions for subsequent projects.

Furthermore, a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable. The City has established a GHG screening threshold (set at 500 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent [“MTCO2e”] per year) for new development projects to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the Checklist. New development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and are expected to generate fewer than 500 MTCO2e annually would not have a cumulative impact and would not be required to provide additional analysis.

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 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 constructionrelated emissions over a 30-year period to calculate annual emissions.

Operational Emissions
Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 26 of 465 ends

1306
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -27- City of Escondido, California 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., consumer 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 waste 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 calculated 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. The proposed Project would generate 84 MT of CO2e emissions annually including the amortized construction emissions. This would be less than the 500 MT CO2e screening threshold referenced above. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Specific goals and actions included in the City of Escondido CAP and Title 24 that pertain to the proposed project include those addressing energy and water use reduction, promotion of green building measures, waste reduction, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would also be required to implement all mandatory green building measures for new residential and commercial development under the CALGreen Code. This would require the project be designed to reduce water consumption, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant emitting finish materials. Implementation of these building and appliance standards would result in water, energy, and construction waste reductions for the proposed project. These requirements are included in the CAP Checklist prepared by the applicant to demonstrate project consistency with applicable elements of the CAP.

Consistency with EO S-3-05 and SB 32
EO S-3-05. This EO establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

SB 32. This bill establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030.

The City prepared a GHG emissions inventory included in the above-referenced CAP. The City’s Final CAP was adopted on May 8, 2021. The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan objectives and policies, coupled with state and federal actions and execution of CAP measures and actions, the City will reduce GHG emissions consistent with state goals established by Senate Bill 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As stated, GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e annually; and thus, would not conflict with applicable State goals and policies regarding GHG reductions, include SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.

CARB has indicated that statewide, California is on track to achieving both the 2030 and 2050 goals. This is confirmed in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Update, which states that the Scoping Plan builds upon the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 27 of 465 ends

1307
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -28- City of Escondido, California successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets.

As stated, the project would not generate enough GHG emissions to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Measures implemented by the project to reduce overall GHG emissions would also contribute to GHG statewide reduction goals. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.

Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 2007 Initial Study
Research for the area was conducted by the County Department of Environmental Health and the site was not identified on the County's list of hazardous waste sites. The County Department of Environmental Health regulates the storage and on-site use of any potential hazardous materials such as fuel oil, motor oil, paints and hazardous cleaning materials to prevent the accidental release of, proper prevention of pollution of the environment. While the site is in the vicinity of the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, the proposed project site was not known to store hazardous chemicals. Of the three wells previously installed to monitor groundwater quality beneath the site, two wells (MW27 and MW28) were approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for closure on October 24, 2006. These have subsequently been removed and filled in. The Regional Board also determined the remaining well (MW57), which is located in the northwestern portion of the 6.28-acre site, should remain or that a replacement well, at a location 235 feet to the northwest, and within the proposed private street would be approved if it provides equivalent deep aquifer information.

The property is not adjacent or within two miles of an airport. Any proposed development would not impair the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 28 of 465 ends

1308
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -29- City of Escondido, California City's emergency response plan according to discussions with the City Fire Department. The areas will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated. Any impacts from the proposed annexation and subdivision map creation will be less than significant. Any further development projects will be subject to CEQA review.

A mitigation measure related to monitoring well MW57 stated that the well is to remain on the project site and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternatively, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. A letter prepared by the Chatham Site PRP Group (May 21, 2009), provided documentation to the California Department of Toxic and Substance Control, that well(s) MW56 (which is unrelated to the project site) and MW57 were decommissioned. The documentation has been provided as Appendix E.

Proposed Project
Information in this section is in part, based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1100 Hamilton Lane, prepared by Weis Environmental, April 2025 (Appendix F) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The proposed project would be comprised of single-family residential development. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, during the short-term period of project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 south of the site. While located within ¼ mile of the site, the project would be a single-family residential development. Other than common cleaning supplies, no hazardous materials would be used or generated on-site or proximal to Bernardo Elementary School. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 29 of 465 ends

1309
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -30- City of Escondido, California the environment?
No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Weis Environmental, Inc., April 2025), the proposed project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. As discussed in the 2007 Initial Study and summarized above, the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, is located proximal to the site.

The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project states the site is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the site. Further, a water supply well is present on the southern adjoining property of the site and to date, no ground water impacts have been reported in this well. Consistent with the above-referenced mitigation measure, a potentially responsible party is required to complete continued monitoring of groundwater in the area and any future mitigation that may be required should a change in conditions occur. As stated, the onsite MW57 was decommissioned as documented (see Appendix F). Thus, the former Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard is not a recognized environmental condition in connection with the site. This determination would not represent information related to a new or previously undisclosed significant environmental impact. The project would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.

Per Exhibit III-5 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the safety compatibility area. Thus, airport operations would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would develop five new single-family residential lots on a 6.02 gross acre site. Both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane would likely be used by residents for evacuation. The proposed project would have no impact on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be required as a result of the proposed project. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located within a developed area and a Local Responsibility Area for fire services. The project site would be served by the Escondido Fire Department. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires because the project site does not adjoin undeveloped wildland areas. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.

14.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 30 of 465 ends

1310
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -31- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
2007 Initial Study
The existing parcel includes gentle to moderate slopes (generally between 0 to 15% slope.) and primarily drains east to west, although the eastern edge does drain eastward. The amount of run-off from the site would be expected to incrementally increase upon development of the proposed lots due to impervious surfaces associated with the development of the residential structures and paving. The project would be required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. The City of Escondido's Engineering Department has determined that because the project is required to have all postconstruction storm water treatment measures in place applicable prior to final occupancy and meet all City of Escondido Stormwater Management Standards thereafter, the runoff from the project would not be considered significant and the project would not materially degrade the existing drainage facilities. The City would provide sewer and water service from mains within the adjacent street or easements; consequently, no significant impact is expected to occur to the groundwater table. The project is outside the 100-year flood plain area as identified on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Therefore, the project site is not subject to potential flooding, landslides or mudflows. Part of the project site is over a once contaminated groundwater, therefore, mitigation will be part of the approval as follows: 1) no drinking water wells shall be drilled on the site; 2) the existing monitoring well on site shall remain until released by DEH; and 3) no excavations shall be allowed on site without proper permits.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No Impact. The project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater retention basin. The basin would be constructed with an impervious liner over gravel and an underdrain system. The filtration media would be comprised of sand, sandy loam and compost to support native plant material.

Stormwater would drain through the media and convey into the underdrain and outlet pipe which would connect to the existing municipal stormwater system located along Hamilton Lane. A riser pipe would be constructed in the pond to directly convey overflow into the outflow pipe. Stormwater would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. No impact would occur.

Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 31 of 465 ends

1311
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -32- City of Escondido, California b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious area on the site. However, it would not pump groundwater nor is the site over an aquifer recharge area such that the project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a manner that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Further, storm flows not conveyed into the on-site basin would percolate into the ground; thus, providing some recharge post-construction. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The drainage pattern would be altered relative to existing conditions.

Stormwater would be conveyed into a new bioretention basin rather than sheet flow through the site.

However, no stream or river would be altered. Any temporary erosion control measures required per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
No Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No off-site flooding would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or No Impact. Under the project design, all runoff would convey into the on-site stormwater bioretention basin.

The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would exceed the existing capacity of the off-site stormwater system. Further, a riser pipe would be constructed to convey any overflow directly into the municipal stormwater system. No impact would occur.

Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As stated, the downstream point of stormwater discharge from the site will not be altered from the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 32 of 465 ends

1312
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -33- City of Escondido, California predevelopment condition. However, all runoff would be conveyed into a new on-site stormwater bioretention basin. The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is required by law to implement stormwater Best Management Practices during construction to minimize erosion and pollutant discharge associated with stormwater runoff to the downstream drainage system. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area nor are there large open water bodies proximal to the site that would pose a potential seiche impact. The project site is not located within the San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Area as depicted in the California Department of Conservation tsunami map. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. Per the City of Escondido 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, minimal groundwater sources are found throughout the City’s service area. Groundwater wells are privately owned and maintained. The City does not participate in any groundwater withdrawal, storage, or replenishment programs. No groundwater would be pumped on-site nor would it be used as part of potable water supplies provided to the project by the City of Escondido. Thus, the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to water quality. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur this threshold.

14.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
2007 Initial Study
The City of Escondido General Plan designates the area as Estate I, allowing single-family residential development. The objective of the Estate I category is to promote single-family development with a maximum density of 1 unit per acre on relatively large lots with minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot sizes. This designation is often applied in transitional areas between more intensive Suburban and less intensive Rural II development. Public wastewater collection and treatment are required in these areas only if the property cannot accommodate a functional septic system.

The extent of dwelling units permitted on the proposed development by Estate I is dependent on the topography of the site. The General Plan indicates that the maximum development yield of Estate I lands shall be sensitive to topography and be calculated according to the following slope categories:

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 33 of 465 ends

1313
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -34- City of Escondido, California  0-15%: 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre;
 15-25%: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres;
 25-35%: 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres; and
 35+ 1: dwelling unit per 20 acres.

The minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet, unless the development is clustered. Based on the variable slope provisions contained in the City's General Plan, 6.02 dwelling units would be allowed for a subdivision map, which is consistent with the proposed 5-lot map submitted. The existing zoning of the entire site is proposed to be pre-zoned to RE-40, which is consistent with the General Plan. From a "plan to ground" analysis, the proposal would add five units to the 6.02-acre site. This is not considered significant since the proposed project would be consistent with existing adopted City of Escondido land use policies. No significant land use impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one new stormwater basin on a vacant 6.02-acre site zoned RE-40. The RE-40 designation requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The residential lots would be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard. An existing single-family lot is bordered to the north, south and east by the proposed project. This lot would retain its existing access to Bernardo Avenue. The project will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element’s designation for the project site and with the Official Zoning Map designation of the property. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the Residential Estate designation accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots.

This designation applies to areas that are on the edge of urban development pattern or in areas that are already characterized by an estate development. Clustering is permitted pursuant to General Plan Residential Clustering Policies.

Land Use and Community Form - GOAL 1: A community composed of distinct residential neighborhoods, business districts, and employment centers, whose urban form reflects the natural environmental setting.

Community Character Policy 1.1 New development should serve to reinforce the city’s present development pattern of higher-intensity development within the downtown area and lower-intensity development in outlying areas. As a guide toward accomplishing this objective, new development projects shall be at an appropriate density or clustered intensity based upon their compatibility with the majority of the existing surrounding land uses. This policy shall limit density transfers from constrained portions of a property as defined in the land use and open space goals.

Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning.

Community Character Policy 1.2 The boundaries of the Land Use categories depicted on the General Plan are not precise. However, the categories are generally intended to avoid intensification of existing land use or zoning designations where land use compatibility and the objectives of the General Plan are at issue.

Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 34 of 465 ends

1314
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -35- City of Escondido, California basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning and the surrounding properties. The project would develop a vacant site; however, it would not intensify the intensity of existing development.

Community Character Policy 1.3 Focus development into areas where land use changes achieve the community’s long-term goals. Facilitate development that is consistent with the build out vision for each area through incentive programs and efficient administrative and discretionary approval processes for plot plans, Planned Developments, Area Plans, Specific Plans, and Zoning Overlays.

Consistent. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning. The project would facilitate development that is consistent with the zoning designation which would support the City’s long-term goals. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold.

14.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
2007 Initial Study
No significant mineral resources have been identified on the subject site. The limited size of the project would not substantially increase the use of, or result in the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources.

Proposed Project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the site is not designated as area with known mineral resources.

No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Refer to Response 14.12a, above. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 35 of 465 ends

1315
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -36- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.13 NOISE. Would the project:
a. 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?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
2007 Initial Study
The Noise Element in the City's General Plan contains noise policies which outline acceptable noise levels associated with each type of land use. A 60 dBA CNEL exposure is considered normally acceptable for exterior residential land uses and 45 dBA CNEL for interior levels based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

The City requires that noise levels be presented in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a weighted sound level during a 24-hour period, after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to average sound levels at evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) and 10 dB to the average night hours (10 PM to 7 AM). The addition of 5 and 10 dB is applied to account for noise sensitivity during evening and nighttime hours.

To assess future noise generation associated with the improvement of the City's circulation system, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in August 2000 for the Escondido General Plan Update illustrating existing and future noise contours. Noise levels depicted for the site show the exposure levels for the entire subject site at below the 60 CNEL standard contained in the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines of the General Plan. Therefore, the exposure to exterior noise levels is within acceptable levels and with proper design of the future residential units, it is anticipated that the exposure to interior noise will also be within acceptable levels. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts associated with the development are anticipated.

Future grading and construction on the site would create temporary noise impacts. Modem construction equipment, properly used and maintained, would meet the noise limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. All noise generated by the project would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.

Upon completion of the project, all construction noise from the project will cease. Because construction operations would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance and because construction noise is temporary, no significant impact from construction noise is anticipated.

Proposed Project
Regulatory Standards.

State Standards. The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning. Land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 36 of 465 ends

1316
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -37- City of Escondido, California are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is “normally acceptable” for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential uses. The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.

California Green Building Code. Section 5.507.4.2 of the 2019 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) stipulates that for buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB or more when measured as a 1-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), the building façade, including walls, windows, and roofs, shall provide enough sound insulation so that the interior sound level from exterior sources does not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. This applies to non-residential occupancies only. For renovation projects, the requirement only applies to the portion of the project within the scope of the renovation.

California Building Code. Section 1206.4 Allowable Interior Noise Levels of California Building Code 2022, the interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) consistent with noise element of the local general plan.

City of Escondido Municipal Code. The City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17, Article 12. Noise Abatement and Control of the Escondido Municipal Code prohibits the making of disturbing, excessive, offensive or unusually loud noises within the City limits. Excessive noise is considered as a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, and prosperity of City residents. Table 3-5 provides Section 17.229(a) sound limit levels for stationary sources at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property from where the sound is originated according to land use type and a permitted time of day.

According to Section 17.234(a-e), construction activities may not exceed more than one hour of 75 dB sound levels and are limited to Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, as stated in Section 17.242 (a), the City Manager may waive any or all of the provisions of this subsection in cases where a variance was obtained, and vehicles or equipment used are reduced to the lowest sounds levels while conducting effective operations Table 3 shows the sound level limits based on the district zones. The above regulatory standards for the project are summarized in Table 3:

Table 3
Sound Level Limits Based on District Zones
Base District Zone Time Applicable Limit – One
Hour Average Sound Level
(decibels)
Residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
Multi-residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Commercial Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 55
Light Industrial/Industrial
Park
Anytime 70*
General Industrial Zones Anytime 75*
+ - Subject to provisions of Section 17-229 (c)(5).

City of Escondido General Plan Community Protection Element. As shown on Page VI-22 of the General Plan Community Protection Element, 24-hour average (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) noise levels ranging between 50 and 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) are normally acceptable for residential uses. Noise levels ranging between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable assuming the 45 dBA interior standard can be met. As shown in Figure VI-14, a project-related increase in ambient noise levels, when ambient conditions reach 65 dBA CNEL, is significant if it is 3 dBA or higher.

Vibration Standard and Guidelines. Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 37 of 465 ends

1317
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -38- City of Escondido, California 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. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of PPV which describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and other high impact demolition and excavation-related activities. Grading also has the potential to cause short-term vibration impacts if large bulldozers, loaded trucks, or other heavy equipment operate within proximity to sensitive land uses. Use of the PPV descriptor is common when addressing potential impacts to structures. Per Caltrans standards, excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the “severe” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources.
a) Would the project cause 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?
Temporary Construction Noise
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, equipment will be audible at off-site receivers. The closest is located near the center of the development area approximately 35 feet from the property boundary and 150 feet from the center of site. Noise levels associated with the use of common construction equipment are shown in Table 4. As shown, the maximum noise level for all the equipment that could be used on-site would exceed the 75 dBA standard referenced in Chapter 17-234 of the Escondido Municipal Code at 50 feet.

However, the code assumes a one-hour average (Leq) noise levels. Heavy equipment would not operate continuously at the same time and in the same location. Assuming, three pieces of equipment (i.e., scraper, loader and truck) are operating at 75, 100 and 150 feet from the nearest receiver over a one-hour period, the Leq would be 74.2 dBA which is less than the 75 dBA Leq standard. As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would meet construction noise requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Air Compressor 78 72 40%
Backhoe 78 72 40%
Bobcat Tractor 84 78 40%
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 38 of 465 ends

1318
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -39- City of Escondido, California Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Concrete Mixer 79 73 40%
Loader 79 73 40%
Bulldozer 82 76 40%
Jack Hammer 89 83 20%
Pavement Roller 80 74 20%
Street Sweeper 82 76 10%
Man Lift 75 69 20%
Dump Truck 77 71 40%
Mobile Crane 81 75 16%
Excavator/Scraper 84 78 40%
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 associated with the usage factor.

Operational Noise
Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source that would be generated by operation of the proposed project. As stated, existing noise levels were measured along the northern site boundary on April 25, 2025. The measured Leq during the 15-minute monitoring period was 62.9 dBA Leq, or approximately 63.9 dBA CNEL. Ambient conditions are less than 65 dBA; the normally compatible noise level for residences referenced in the General Plan Community Protection Element policy for exterior noise exposure to transportation related noise at residences and other sensitive properties. A doubling or halving of sound energy is required for the human ear to perceive an increase in noise levels. A change of 3 dBA is associated with the doubling or halving of sound energy; thus, the project would need to double existing volumes on Hamilton Lane and Bernardo Avenue to create a significant traffic noise impact. During monitoring, a total of 55 cars/light trucks passed the monitoring site on Bernardo Avenue and 59 cars/light trucks passed the site on Hamilton Lane. Peak hour volumes would be approximately 220 vehicles on Bernardo Avenue and 236 vehicles on Hamilton Lane. The project would add approximately 0.5 trips per hour which when added to peak hour traffic would have no noticeable effect on noise levels. Operational impacts would be less than significant. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Temporary Vibration Impacts
Less than significant. The vibration velocity level for perception by humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. As stated, the California Department of Transportation uses the following standards when addressing vibration. Excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the “severe” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources, as specified by Caltrans (April 2020) The PPV and accompanying VdB level associated with common construction equipment is shown in Table 5. Based on the project geotechnical study and information from the applicant, heavy impact construction methods that could generate enough vibration to damage buildings proximal to the project site (i.e., pile driving, rock breaking, drilling, blasting) would not be required for the project.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 39 of 465 ends

1319
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -40- City of Escondido, California Construction activity on the project site would be temporary and vibration events would be transitory occuring only during equipment pass bys. Using vibration levels associated with a large bulldozer, the piece of grading equipment with the highest vibration level, as a worst-case scenario, groundborne vibration would be approximately 0.089 PPV at 25 feet (see Table 5 below). Similarly, if a hoe ram were required to break rocks during grading, a similar PPV would be expected. The PPV generated by a heavy bulldozer or hoe ram at 25 feet are below the vibration thresholds of significance referenced above.

Table 5
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second) at 25 feet
Approximate Vibration Level
LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall - soil) 0.008 in soil 66
Hydromill (slurry wall - rock 0.017 in rock 75
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, September 2018.

Operational Impacts. The proposed project is a residential development. It would not generate vibration postconstruction. No operational vibration impacts would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, vibration during construction and operation would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.

Per Exhibit III-1 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated no impact would occur under this threshold.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 40 of 465 ends

1320
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -41- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.14 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2007 Initial Study
Population within the City would incrementally increase as a result of developing the proposed five residential lots. The City's General Plan anticipates single-family residential use on the project site and the density of the proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Estate I. The proposed development would incrementally contribute to the City's Regional Share Housing requirements. The development of the site would not be considered growth-inducing since the project site is located within an established community. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant population and housing impact.

Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater detention basin. As stated, the number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. The proposed number of units would be within the total projected for the City of Escondido by 2035. Further, because the project is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designation, the project would not induce substantial population growth. A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would not require the removal existing housing, and therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.

Page 41 of 465 ends

1321
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -42- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
2007 Initial Study
Fire - The City Fire Department has indicated their ability to adequately serve the proposed project. One additional fire hydrant and a fire tum-around are to be located within the project is part of the proposal.

Law Enforcement -The City's Police Department currently serves the area and can easily included the property within a patrol beat. The Department has not expressed concerns regarding its ability to serve the site.

Schools - The site is within the Escondido Union School District and the Escondido Union High School District. Students would likely attend the new Bernardo Elementary School, Bear Valley Middle School, and San Pasqual High School. ꞏThe incremental impact of the proposed residential developments on the school system would be offset by the impact fees collected upon issuance of building permits.

Proposed Project
1) Fire protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services to the City of Escondido. Fire Station 5 is the nearest station to the project site. It is located at 2319 Felicita Road approximately 800 feet northeast of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for fire and emergency service may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan.

Further, the project would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable codes and standards for access and fire suppression infrastructure. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Fire Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new fire station to maintain service ratios within the service area served by Fire Station 5. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 42 of 465 ends

1322
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -43- City of Escondido, California 2) Police protection?
Less than significant. The Escondido Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Escondido. The headquarters is located at 1163 North Centre City Parkway approximately 3.2 miles north of the site. Given the nature of the project, demand for law enforcement services may increase over existing conditions. The project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and would not increase the population beyond what was anticipated in the Escondido General Plan. The payment of impact fees would fund any necessary improvements to the Escondido Police Department infrastructure to maintain or improve the efficiency of department operations. The project would not require the construction of a new police station to maintain service ratios within the service area. Impacts would be less than significant. This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
3) Schools?
Less than significant. The nearest school to the project site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 miles south of the site. The proposed project would likely provide housing for school-aged children; thus, affecting demand for school services. The applicant would be required to pay a developer fee of $4.46 per square foot (or current rate at the time of assessment) of assessable residential space to support ongoing development of school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

This determination would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 4) Parks?
Less than significant. Felicita County Park is the most directly accessible park from the project site. It is located approximately 0.3 miles south of the project site along the east side of Park Drive. The increase in population living in the area is not expected to impact demand for park facilities. The project would not remove park or recreational facilities that would require replacement elsewhere. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant. 5) Other public facilities?
Less than significant. Other public facilities include streets, libraries, senior centers, community centers, and pools, all of which are intended to serve the general public. No impacts to other public facilities are anticipated to occur with the construction and operation of the proposed project. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, as stated, impacts would be less than significant.

14.16 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 43 of 465 ends

1323
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -44- City of Escondido, California 2007 Initial Study
Development of the area would result in an incremental demand on the City's recreational facilities. However, the development fees paid by this project would offset the anticipated impact on the existing facilities. The proposed project would not affect existing recreational opportunities since the site is not used for recreational activities; consequently no significant impact to recreational resources would occur as a result of the project.

Proposed Project
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not affect any existing park facilities nor increase the demand for additional recreational facilities to the extent that it would result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. a) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. No additional recreational facilities that could potentially result in an adverse impact on the environment would be constructed. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.

14.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
2007 Initial Study
The project's private street (36' R-O-W) serving four of the proposed lots would connect with Hamilton Lane at a point nearly 300 feet east of the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane and directly across from the existing intersection of Hamilton Lane and Rancho Diego Court. Hamilton Lane is currently a Local Collector (63' R-O-W). Traffic from the newly proposed private street would either continue west or eastbound on Hamilton Lane. The fifth proposed lot would have access via a proposed driveway connected to Bernardo Avenue approximately 60 feet south of the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane.

The project will potentially add traffic to the existing intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 44 of 465 ends

1324
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -45- City of Escondido, California (County). Based on San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) traffic generation rates for the San Diego region, the proposed subdivision would generate approximately 12 trips per dwelling unit, or approximately 60 new ADTs. The City's Engineering Department indicated that the increase of 60 additional trips onto this segment of Hamilton Lane will not significantly impact the existing Levels of Service on the adjacent streets and intersections. Stable traffic flow is maintained along the segment and ability to maneuver within the vicinity of the project and along the Hamilton Lane segment is not significantly restricted. The City's Engineering Department further indicated the proposed project is not anticipated to have any significant individual or cumulative impacts to the circulation system or degrade the LOS (Levels of Service) on any of the adjacent roadways or intersections.

Proposed Project
Information in this section is summarized from the Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies, prepared by Mizuta Traffic Consulting, Inc., March 2025 and provided as Appendix G. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact. The project would provide five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin. The project would generate approximately 80 daily trips. The project would not require any improvements to either Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. There is no existing transit proximal to the site; thus, transit would not be affected by the project. The project would provide curb/gutter/sidewalk frontage improvements which would address existing pedestrian deficiencies in the project area. No bicycle lanes are currently provided; thus, none would be affected by the project. The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. As stated, the project would generate 80 new daily vehicle trips. The Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies states that the project would screen out of the need to provide a complete Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis because it does not exceed 200 daily trips. The project would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). A less than significant impact would occur. This is consistent with the impact determination in the 2007 Initial Study. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project would provide five new residences and a stormwater basin. The project would not modify the existing transportation system or introduce incompatible uses. This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. While the project would increase traffic by 80 daily trips, it would not adversely impact emergency access by providing inadequate site access or otherwise impacting use of local streets by emergency vehicles.

This issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 45 of 465 ends

1325
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -46- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of tribal cultural resource impacts per AB 52 was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.

Proposed Project
i)) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? No impact. As stated in Section 14.5, Cultural Resources; the SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur.
ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe)? Less than Significant. As stated in Section 4.15, no Tribal Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping. However, the Native American scoping identified the project Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 46 of 465 ends

1326
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -47- City of Escondido, California vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.

Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a Condition of Approval (CUL-1) for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. The discovery of human remains would be addressed by complying with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. With implementation of existing regulations addressing the discovery of human remains, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact

14.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
2007 Initial Study
Sewer Service. There currently exists a public sewer line in City streets immediately off-site that would accommodate the site's needs. City Public Utilities staff has confirmed that adequate treatment capacity exists to serve the project site.

Water Service. The site is within the Rincon Water District's Improvement District #1. Currently, adequate water delivery is available from water lines in adjacent streets.

Storm Water/Refuse Collection. The proposed project is required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, City of Escondido's post-construction storm water treatment measures, and meet all City of Escondido Storm Water Management Standards thereafter to meet state and federal requirements.

Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 47 of 465 ends

1327
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -48- City of Escondido, California Escondido Disposal currently provides solid waste service to the area and the project would not result in a significant increase in solid waste. The proposal would not result in any individual or cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems.

Streets. The annexation will include the portion of Bernardo Avenue west of the project, the portion of Hamilton Lane north of the project (to the centerline plus ten feet) and the intersection of Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. Road maintenance responsibilities will fall either on the City or the County and it is anticipated that no significant impacts to services will result.

Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded, water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The project would connect to existing water/sewer and telecommunication infrastructure located adjacent to the site. No utility extensions, other than what is required to connect the project to adjacent offsite infrastructure would be required. The project would not require the expansion of existing water, wastewater or other utility systems, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant. The project site is located within the City of Escondido Water Department service area. The City owns, operates, and maintains approximately 44 miles of pipeline, 11 reservoirs, five pump stations, and two dams (and associated lakes). These resources are used to provide potable water to approximately 27,170 metered potable connections. As reported in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the supply reliability assessment considered factors that could limit the expected quantity of current and projected water sources through 2045. The City’s water service reliability assessment and Drought Risk Assessment results indicate that no water shortages are anticipated within the next 25 years under normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years conditions.

The proposed project would have an annual water demand of approximately 996,273 gallons (both indoor use and outdoor irrigation demand) or 3.05-acre feet. As stated, the project would be consistent with zoning; thus, water demand has been incorporated into demand projections. No new or expanded entitlements would be required with implementation of the proposed project. Water supply impacts would be less than significant.

This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No Impact. As stated in threshold a, the project would connect to existing sewer infrastructure located adjacent to the site. The City owns and operates the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF), which has a design flow capacity of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) and the capacity to handle instantaneous flows of up to 36 MGD. Assuming sewer demand is 60 percent of indoor water demand (462 gallons daily), the daily sewer demand would be 277 gallons per day which is well within the daily treatment capacity of the HARRF. No new or expanded entitlements for wastewater treatment would be required with implementation of the proposed project. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 48 of 465 ends

1328
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -49- City of Escondido, California infrastructures, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The City contracts solid waste collection services with Escondido Disposal. Waste is disposed at the Miramar Landfill in the City of San Diego. The Miramar Landfill is permitted to accept up to a maximum of 2,250 tons of waste per day. According to CalEEMod 2022.1 projections, the daily project demand would be 18 pounds or 3.32 tons annually. Project operation would not generate solid waste; and thus, would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to the City’s Solid Waste and Recycling Code (Chapter 14 of the City’s Municipal Code and 2022 Calgreen section 5.408) which will require that construction debris be recycled. The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. No impact would occur. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; no impact would occur under this threshold.

14.20 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildlife or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
2007 Initial Study
This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. As stated in Section 14.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the area will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated.

Proposed Project
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 49 of 465 ends

1329
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -50- City of Escondido, California a-d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area in southern Escondido and within a Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of the Escondido Fire Department. There are no wildlands located on or within proximity of the project site. No wildland fires would occur in the project area; thus, thresholds a-d would not be applicable. No impact would occur. This is consistent with the 2007 Initial Study determination.

6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM COMPLIANCE As stated above, the following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as part of the 2007 Initial Study. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable measures. The follow summarizes the mitigation measures and applicability to the proposed project.

Air Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a sitespecific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties.

Proposed Project. A project-specific air quality analysis was prepared for the project and provided as part of the discussion in Section 14.3, Air Quality. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on air quality.

This mitigation measure has been satisfied.

Biological Resources
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. To address direct impacts to non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub, the proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank for non-native grassland. For impacts to 0.02 acres of coastal sage scrub, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval would be required.

Proposed Project. No non-native grassland or coastal sage scrub vegetation was reported in the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July 2024. These habitat types no longer occur on the site. However, as stated, mitigation from the 2007 Initial Study pertaining to non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub remains applicable and would be enforced at the City’s discretion. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oaks trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site.

Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed; however, the Project would be in compliance with City’s Municipal Code requirements for trees. Regardless, for each Live Oak tree removed, the tree would be replaced on-site and one additional tree would be planted on-site as so stated in the 2007 Initial Study.
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all younq have fledqed.

Proposed Project. As stated, multiple trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed project. A preconstruction nesting survey would be required consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 2007 Initial Study Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the fiveResolution No. 2026-90 Exhibit "C"

Page 50 of 465 ends

1330
Item9.

Initial Study Addendum -51- City of Escondido, California year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock.

Proposed Project. The proposed project would replace Live Oak trees removed during construction at a 1:1 ratio on-site and plant one additional Live Oak tree as mitigation for impacts to Live Oak tree impacts.

Hazardous Materials
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.

Proposed Project. Monitoring Well MW57 has been removed from the site as documented in the May 21, 2009, letter provided by the Chatham Site PRP Group. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.

Hydrology/Water Quality
2007 Initial Study Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits.

Proposed Project. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. No wells would be drilled on-site. This mitigation measure is no longer applicable.

7. SPECIFIC MMRP ISSUE AREA CONDITIONS/REQUIREMENTS
The project applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures from the 2007 Initial Study that pertain to site conditions and project impacts as defined herein, as well as, current Conditions of Approval that apply to the proposed project. No new significant or adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation were identified for the proposed project. Implementation of Condition of Approval CUL-1 at the City’s discretion, would address Native American monitoring recommendations during grading and ground disturbance activities.

8. SIGNIFICANT UNMITIGATED IMPACTS
No significant unmitigated impacts were identified in the 2007 Initial Study or the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in any additional significant impacts nor would it result in an increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the previously adopted 2007 Initial Study.

9. CERTIFICATION
Copies of the addendum, the 2007 Initial Study and Addendum, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and associated project-specific technical appendices, may be reviewed by appointment in the City of Escondido Planning Department office.

Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
Date
Melissa DiMarzo
4/21/26
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 51 of 465 ends

1331
Item9.

Appendix A – California Emission Estimator
Model Output File
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 52 of 465 ends

1332
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
1 / 75
Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 53 of 465 ends

1333
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
2 / 75

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 54 of 465 ends

1334
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
3 / 75

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 55 of 465 ends

1335
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
4 / 75

4.8.1. Unmitigated4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 56 of 465 ends

1336
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
5 / 75

5.3.1. Unmitigated5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 57 of 465 ends

1337
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
6 / 75

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 58 of 465 ends

1338
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
7 / 75

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 59 of 465 ends

1339
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
8 / 75

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores7.4. Health & Equity Measures7.5. Evaluation Scorecard7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 60 of 465 ends

1340
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
9 / 75

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name Hamilton Lane EscondidoConstruction Start Date 3/2/2026Operational Year 2026Lead Agency —Land Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 2.20Precipitation (days) 26.6Location 33.089247938234934, -117.08811878755569County San DiegoCity EscondidoAir District San Diego County APCDAir Basin San DiegoTAZ 6294EDFZ 12Electric Utility San Diego Gas & ElectricGas Utility San Diego Gas & ElectricApp 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 LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
Single FamilyHousing

5.00 Dwelling Unit 1.62 9,750 58,564 — 14.0 —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 61 of 465 ends

1341
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
10 / 75

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure TitleConstruction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle IdlingWater W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.2. Emissions Summary2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Unmit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Mit. 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558%Reduced —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614Mit. 6.22 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,614%Reduced —————————————————
AverageDaily(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143Mit. 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,143 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 62 of 465 ends

1342
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
11 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — %
Reduced
Annual(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189Mit. 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 189%Reduced —————————————————

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eDaily -Summer(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Daily -Winter(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,6142027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 — 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836AverageDaily —————————————————
2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,1432027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 1892027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 63 of 465 ends

1343
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
12 / 75
Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -Summer(Max)
—————————————————
2026 1.46 12.9 14.5 0.02 0.58 2.85 3.43 0.53 1.36 1.89 — 2,548 2,548 0.10 0.02 0.33 2,558Daily -Winter(Max) —————————————————
2026 1.44 13.0 15.1 0.02 0.51 2.51 3.01 0.47 1.19 1.65 — 2,604 2,604 0.11 0.02 0.01 2,6142027 6.22 8.28 9.98 0.02 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.24 0.02 0.25 — 1,829 1,829 0.07 0.02 0.01 1,836AverageDaily —————————————————
2026 0.64 5.40 6.29 0.01 0.19 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.20 — 1,138 1,138 0.05 0.01 0.03 1,1432027 0.21 0.37 0.49 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 84.0 84.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.4Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2026 0.12 0.99 1.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.03 < 0.005 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 1892027 0.04 0.07 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 14.0

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Unmit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 476 479 0.24 0.02 1.31 490Mit. 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 474 476 0.23 0.01 1.31 488%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — — 1%
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 459 461 0.24 0.02 0.10 472 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 64 of 465 ends

1344
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
13 / 75
Mit. 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 457 459 0.23 0.02 0.10 470 %Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% — — 1%
AverageDaily(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.13 454 456 0.24 0.02 0.59 467Mit. 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.06 452 454 0.23 0.02 0.59 465%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% 1% 3% — — 1%
Annual(Max)
—————————————————
Unmit. 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.35 75.2 75.5 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.4Mit. 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.34 74.8 75.2 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.0%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% 1% 3% 1% — 1%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Area 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 476 479 0.24 0.02 1.31 490 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 65 of 465 ends

1345
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
14 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Winter(Max)
Mobile 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Area 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.13 459 461 0.24 0.02 0.10 472AverageDaily —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.15 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 347 347 0.02 0.01 0.52 353Area 0.24 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.13 454 456 0.24 0.02 0.59 467Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4Area 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01Total 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.35 75.2 75.5 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.4

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 66 of 465 ends

1346
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
15 / 75
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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Area 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.45 0.18 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 474 476 0.23 0.01 1.31 488Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Area 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Total 0.42 0.19 1.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.09 2.06 457 459 0.23 0.02 0.10 470AverageDaily —————————————————
Mobile 0.19 0.15 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 347 347 0.02 0.01 0.52 353Area 0.24 < 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.38Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.2 95.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 95.5Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 67 of 465 ends

1347
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
16 / 75
Total 0.43 0.19 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.08 2.06 452 454 0.23 0.02 0.59 465 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4Area 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67Waste — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01Total 0.08 0.03 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.34 74.8 75.2 0.04 < 0.005 0.10 77.0

3. Construction Emissions Details3.1. Demolition (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 68 of 465 ends

1348
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
17 / 75
137 — < 0.005 0.01 137 137 — 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 < 0.005 0.80 0.71 0.08 Off-Road Equipment
Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 69 of 465 ends

1349
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
18 / 75

3.2. Demolition (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.39 12.9 14.6 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,503 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.08 0.71 0.80 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.13 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolition
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 70 of 465 ends

1350
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
19 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Summer(Max)
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 111Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.07 6.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 1.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 71 of 465 ends

1351
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
20 / 75
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment < 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 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 72 of 465 ends

1352
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
21 / 75
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8 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 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.8 65.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 66.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —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 0.06Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 73 of 465 ends

1353
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
22 / 75
— — — — — — — 1.17 1.17 — 2.44 2.44 — — — — — Dust
FromMaterialMovement
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

1.24 11.0 11.7 0.02 0.51 — 0.51 0.47 — 0.47 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.44 2.44 — 1.17 1.17 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

Page 74 of 465 ends

1354
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
23 / 75
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 69.7 69.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 70.8Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.8 65.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 66.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —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 0.06Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 75 of 465 ends

1355
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
24 / 75
DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.02 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment < 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 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

Page 76 of 465 ends

1356
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
25 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —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 0.16Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.42 12.9 14.0 0.02 0.58 — 0.58 0.53 — 0.53 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
—————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 77 of 465 ends

1357
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
26 / 75
Off-RoadEquipment

0.02 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.0 93.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 94.4Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
AverageDaily
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.97 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.98Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —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 0.16 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 78 of 465 ends

1358
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
27 / 75
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 (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

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 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

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 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.53 4.48 5.20 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 941 941 0.04 0.01 — 944 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

0.10 0.82 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 156 156 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Onsitetruck

Page 79 of 465 ends

1359
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
28 / 75
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 17.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33 8.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.45Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.86 6.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

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 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 80 of 465 ends

1360
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
29 / 75
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

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 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.53 4.48 5.20 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 941 941 0.04 0.01 — 944 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment

0.10 0.82 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 156 156 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 17.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.0Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 81 of 465 ends

1361
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
30 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Average
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.33 8.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.45Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.86 6.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.17Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.38 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.19Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.23 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 82 of 465 ends

1362
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
31 / 75

8.20 — < 0.005 < 0.005 8.17 8.17 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 Off-Road Equipment
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2027) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 83 of 465 ends

1363
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
32 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.23 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.3 49.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.5 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.17 8.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.20 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 84 of 465 ends

1364
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
33 / 75
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment < 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 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 85 of 465 ends

1365
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
34 / 75
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 109Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.98 2.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2027) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 86 of 465 ends

1366
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
35 / 75
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 108 108 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 109Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.98 2.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.02Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 87 of 465 ends

1367
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
36 / 75
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.49 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.50 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 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

6.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment
< 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 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-RoadEquipment < 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 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 88 of 465 ends

1368
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
37 / 75
ArchitectCoatings

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 (2027) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 89 of 465 ends

1369
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
38 / 75
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

6.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
—————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.11 3.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.15 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 90 of 465 ends

1370
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
39 / 75
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 0.00AverageDaily —————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 Details4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing

0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375 Total 0.20 0.14 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 369 369 0.02 0.01 1.24 375Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 91 of 465 ends

1371
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
40 / 75
358 0.03 0.01 0.02 353 353 — 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40 0.16 0.19 Single FamilyHousing
Total 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing

0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4 Total 0.03 0.03 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 57.5 57.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 58.4

4.1.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing

0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358 Total 0.19 0.16 1.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 353 353 0.02 0.01 0.03 358Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing

Page 92 of 465 ends

1372
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
41 / 75

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 93 of 465 ends

1373
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
42 / 75
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.5 49.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.7Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.20 8.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.23

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 94 of 465 ends

1374
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
43 / 75
Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
< 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.7 45.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.8Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.57 7.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.59

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 95 of 465 ends

1375
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
44 / 75

4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts

0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.03 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 Total 0.25 < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts

0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —ConsumerProducts

0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 96 of 465 ends

1376
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
45 / 75

0.06 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 Landsca pe
Total 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06

4.3.2. MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
ConsumerProducts

0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 97 of 465 ends

1377
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
46 / 75
ArchitectCoatings
< 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 Total 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 11.1 11.4 0.04 < 0.005 — 12.6Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 1.84 1.89 0.01 < 0.005 — 2.08 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 98 of 465 ends

1378
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
47 / 75

4.4.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 8.87 9.14 0.03 < 0.005 — 10.1Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 1.47 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.67

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 99 of 465 ends

1379
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
48 / 75
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04

4.5.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 100 of 465 ends

1380
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
49 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 0.00 1.79 0.18 0.00 — 6.26 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.03 0.00 — 1.04

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 101 of 465 ends

1381
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
50 / 75

4.6.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
SingleFamilyHousing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.07 0.07Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —SingleFamilyHousing — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 102 of 465 ends

1382
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
51 / 75
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Daily,
Summer(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 103 of 465 ends

1383
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
52 / 75
CO2e R N2O CH4 CO2T NBCO2 BCO2 PM2.5T PM2.5D PM2.5E PM10T PM10D PM10E SO2 CO NOx ROG Equipme nt
Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type4.9.1. Unmitigated Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 104 of 465 ends

1384
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
53 / 75
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 105 of 465 ends

1385
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
54 / 75

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
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 - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
—————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 106 of 465 ends

1386
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
55 / 75
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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 107 of 465 ends

1387
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
56 / 75
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 108 of 465 ends

1388
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
57 / 75
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) —————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered —————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 109 of 465 ends

1389
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
58 / 75
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
—————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ———————————————————

5. Activity Data5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase DescriptionDemolition Demolition 3/2/2026 3/30/2026 5.00 20.0 —Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/31/2026 4/2/2026 5.00 2.00 —Grading Grading 4/3/2026 4/8/2026 5.00 4.00 —Building Construction Building Construction 4/9/2026 1/14/2027 5.00 200 —Paving Paving 1/15/2027 1/29/2027 5.00 10.0 —Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/30/2027 2/13/2027 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 110 of 465 ends

1390
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
59 / 75
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building 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 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
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 FactorDemolition Concrete/Industrial Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 111 of 465 ends

1391
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
60 / 75
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 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building 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 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle MixDemolition ————Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTDemolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 112 of 465 ends

1392
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
61 / 75
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation ————Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading ————Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction ————Building Construction Worker 1.80 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 0.53 7.63 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTBuilding Construction Onsite truck — — HHDTPaving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating ————Architectural Coating Worker 0.36 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTArchitectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 113 of 465 ends

1393
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
62 / 75
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————Demolition Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Demolition Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTDemolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTDemolition Onsite truck — — HHDTSite Preparation ————Site Preparation Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading ————Grading Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction ————Building Construction Worker 1.80 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 0.53 7.63 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTBuilding Construction Onsite truck — — HHDTPaving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating ————Architectural Coating Worker 0.36 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 114 of 465 ends

1394
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
63 / 75
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.63 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control StrategiesNon-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 19,744 6,581 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —Site Preparation — — 1.88 0.00 —Grading — — 4.00 0.00 —Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 ReductionWater Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 115 of 465 ends

1395
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
64 / 75
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.06 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions FactorskWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.0052027 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearSingle FamilyHousing

47.2 47.7 42.8 17,022 443 447 401 159,641

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearSingle FamilyHousing

47.2 47.7 42.8 17,022 443 447 401 159,641

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.1.2. Mitigated Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 116 of 465 ends

1396
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
65 / 75

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sqft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sqft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
19743.75 6,581 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (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)Single Family Housing 30,706 589 0.0330 0.0040 142,585

5.11.2. MitigatedElectricity (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)Single Family Housing 30,706 589 0.0330 0.0040 142,585 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 117 of 465 ends

1397
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
66 / 75

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Single Family Housing 175,665 1,069,677

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Single Family Housing 140,532 855,741

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Single Family Housing 3.32 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Single Family Housing 3.32 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedSingle Family Housing Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 118 of 465 ends

1398
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
67 / 75

1.00 0.00 0.60 0.12 1,430 R-134a Single Family Housing Household refrigerators and/orfreezers

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedSingle Family Housing Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/orfreezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. 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 Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year 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) Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 119 of 465 ends

1399
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
68 / 75

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. 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 Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 120 of 465 ends

1400
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
69 / 75
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report6.1. Climate Risk SummaryCal-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 whichassumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location UnitTemperature and Extreme Heat 15.7 annual days of extreme heatExtreme Precipitation 5.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mmSea Level Rise — meters of inundation depthWildfire 8.89 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 fromobserved 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 ifreceived 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), andconsider 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 withextreme 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 metersWildfire 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 dataof 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. Thefour simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range ofdifferent 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 ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/A Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 121 of 465 ends

1401
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
70 / 75
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 thegreatest 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 5representing 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 reductionmeasures.6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability ScoreTemperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/AExtreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/ASea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/AWildfire N/A N/A N/A N/AFlooding N/A N/A N/A N/ADrought N/A N/A N/A N/ASnowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/AAir 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 thegreatest 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 5representing 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 reductionmeasures.6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures7. Health and Equity Details7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ScoresThe 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.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 122 of 465 ends

1402
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
71 / 75
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —AQ-Ozone 50.5AQ-PM 15.4AQ-DPM 58.2Drinking Water 60.0Lead Risk Housing 6.84Pesticides 57.7Toxic Releases 10.6Traffic 80.1Effect Indicators —CleanUp Sites 78.7Groundwater 60.4Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 0.00Impaired Water Bodies 93.4Solid Waste 35.7Sensitive Population —Asthma 7.05Cardio-vascular 45.0Low Birth Weights 4.54Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —Education 15.2Housing 21.6Linguistic 22.9Poverty 4.02Unemployment 8.69

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 123 of 465 ends

1403
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
72 / 75
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 TractEconomic —Above Poverty 92.64724753Employed 58.62953933Median HI 90.27332221Education —Bachelor's or higher 78.6603362High school enrollment 100Preschool enrollment 67.35531888Transportation —Auto Access 98.98626973Active commuting 12.51122803Social —2-parent households 98.40882844Voting 98.8836135Neighborhood —Alcohol availability 87.56576415Park access 35.44206339Retail density 26.84460413Supermarket access 21.57064032Tree canopy 71.57705633Housing —Homeownership 97.12562556Housing habitability 99.51238291Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 84.98652637Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 99.08892596Uncrowded housing 85.268831Health Outcomes — Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 124 of 465 ends

1404
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
73 / 75
Insured adults 95.534454
Arthritis 2.5Asthma ER Admissions 91.6High Blood Pressure 4.8Cancer (excluding skin) 2.0Asthma 80.2Coronary Heart Disease 5.6Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1Diagnosed Diabetes 36.9Life Expectancy at Birth 82.2Cognitively Disabled 87.2Physically Disabled 85.5Heart Attack ER Admissions 83.2Mental Health Not Good 87.0Chronic Kidney Disease 10.6Obesity 74.1Pedestrian Injuries 19.6Physical Health Not Good 66.1Stroke 26.0Health Risk Behaviors —Binge Drinking 71.2Current Smoker 89.7No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 77.2Climate Change Exposures —Wildfire Risk 10.8SLR Inundation Area 0.0Children 95.8Elderly 9.2 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 125 of 465 ends

1405
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
74 / 75
English Speaking 67.3
Foreign-born 29.8Outdoor Workers 56.8Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —Impervious Surface Cover 87.0Traffic Density 88.6Traffic Access 50.8Other Indices —Hardship 9.9Other Decision Support —2016 Voting 98.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census TractCalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 12.0Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 91.0Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) NoProject Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) NoProject 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 MeasuresNo Health & Equity Measures selected.7.5. Evaluation ScorecardHealth & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.7.6. Health & Equity Custom MeasuresNo Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 126 of 465 ends

1406
Item9.

Hamilton Lane Escondido Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
75 / 75

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen JustificationOperations: Hearths No fireplaces or wood stoves Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 127 of 465 ends

1407
Item9.

Appendix B - Biological Resources
Memorandum
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 128 of 465 ends

1408
Item9.

Page 1 of 13 ends

Tierra Data, Inc.
10110 W. Lilac Road
Escondido, CA 92026
(760) 749-2247
MEMO
To: Lee Duran
From: Derek Langsford, PhD, CSE
Principal Scientist
Date: July 9, 2024
Subject: Biological Resources at 1100 Hamilton Lane, Escondido, California 92025 Dear Mr. Duran:

Introduction
This memo has been prepared to provide you (Client) with a biological assessment for the approximately

6.2-acre, vacant parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 238-360-27-68) located at 1100 Hamilton Lane, in the City of Escondido (City), San Diego County, California (Figure 1).

The California Environmental Quality Act requires that any project that is not exempt undergo assessment to determine if any impacts are significant and to identify measures that would reduce effects to less than significant. This memo can be used by the City to determine if additional studies or reports are needed in consideration of your project.

Location
The irregularly-shaped, vacant parcel is in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Bernardo Drive and Hamilton Lane in south Escondido with Park Drive and Felicita Creek to the southwest and residential development to the east, north and west (Figure 1).

Proposed Project
The owner proposed to subdivide the 6.2-acre parcel into 5 lots for future construction of single-family homes plus a retention basin to capture stormwater. Access to Lot 1 would be off Bernardo Drive, whereas access to Lots 2 through 5 would be from a shared driveway from Hamilton Lane.

Methods
On Monday April 22nd, 2024, TDI Biologists Ben Van Allen and Caitlin Kreutz conducted a comprehensive general biological survey of the parcel. The survey accomplished several tasks, including vegetation analysis, animal and plant survey, rare plant survey, measurement of trees, and habitat assessment for sensitive species to occur. Commencing at 0900 hours and concluding at 1200 hours PST, the whole site survey was surveyed, conducted under cool and cloudy weather conditions, with temperatures ranging between 62-68ºF.

A recent high-resolution aerial photograph was used for delineating vegetation boundaries, identifying and documenting species. Photos were taken to provide a photographic record of the property.

Results
Setting
The subject parcel is located at 1100 Hamilton Lane in the southern portion of the City, west of Interstate 15, having been annexed into the City from the unincorporated area that now occurs on just the north, east and south sides of the parcel with the City being to the west across Bernardo Drive. The parcel is undeveloped but there are developed residential neighborhoods to the north, west and east. To the south there are a handful of developed residential lots, but also additional undeveloped land and the upstream portion of Felicita Creek being just across Park Drive to the south.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 129 of 465 ends

1409
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 2 of 13 ends

Figure 1: Vicinity of 1100 Hamilton Lane Parcel in south Escondido Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 130 of 465 ends

1410
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 3 of 13 ends

Topography
The parcel is mostly flat with a low at the western-most point of the parcel at 635 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and a high point of 662 feet amsl in the rock just north of the trees in the southern portion of the parcel (USGS TopoView 2024). The parcel slopes down in all directions from that high point. No depressions or channels occur on site.

Soils
The site supports two types of soil (USDA 2024): Placentia sandy loam (PfC) 2-9% slope in the west of the parcel, and with the majority being Fallbrook sandy loam 9 to 15% slopes (FaD2). PfC can be hydric if in depressions, but FaD2 has no hydric rating.

Wetlands
No USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetlands occur on site, but Felicita Creek runs northwest to southeast on the far side of Park Drive from the parcel. A tributary to Felicita Creek occurs to the east of Felicita Road, half a block to the east of the parcel. No FEMA Floodplains occur on site (FEMA 2024).

History
The earliest aerial photos show that the site was already cleared with a portion supporting Orchard agriculture in 1947 surrounded by cleared agricultural land and other orchards (Historic Aerials 2024).

Homes on large lots had appeared in the vicinity by the 1960s when the orchard on site appears to have been abandoned with all trace gone by the late 1970s. Some of the existing trees on the site were already present by then. The site has been kept clear ever since with no signs of shrub growth suggesting it was being mowed regularly. By 1980, denser homes had been built to the east, and then to the north, south, and west by 1990. Bernardo School, to the south on Bernardo Drive was built around 2005. The last development nearby to the west was built between 2009 and 2013 (Historic Aerials 2024).

The parcel has been kept clear apart from trees in the south and the rocks in the center and south.

Examination of aerial imagery since 2010, has shown evidence of mowing (parallel tire tracks and mowing strips) at least once per year every year between 2010 and 2022 (Google Earth 2024). The new owner is in receipt of a Weed Abatement Order from the City weed abatement order from the City pursuant to Escondido Municipal Code Property Maintenance Ordinance Section 6-484(d)(1) which necessitates “the management of non-native plants and grasses to reduce fire risk” that is achieved through regular mowing (See Attachment 1).

Biological Resources
The parcel is primarily Disturbed Habitat (DH) composed of annual non-native grasses and non-native vegetation, reflecting the history of agricultural usage and repeated mowing for weed abatement. Due to the significant disturbance and a shift from the original vegetation composition, resilient and fast-growing non-native species and grasses now outcompete the native flora including several brome grasses (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus and B. diandrus) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata), as well as non-native forbs, such as mustards (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees (Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum).

Despite the dominance of non-native species, the parcel supports some native species, predominantly annual forbs such as Menzies' Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Narrow Leaf Bedstraw (Galium angustifolium) and a few diminutive perennial species including Coast Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) which have clearly been mowed annually.

Additionally, several large piles of mulch have been placed on the property, with some already spread.

These piles consist primarily of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) material, laden with seeds that are now sprouting abundantly.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 131 of 465 ends

1411
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 4 of 13 ends

Animals observed included species of native and non-native Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), Great Basin fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) on the rocks, a dead gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), evidence of Coyote (Canis latrans), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and a woodrat nest (Neotoma sp.), and common birds including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (house finch), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Larger birds were using the off-site trees in the vicinity, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicansis) was seen flying overhead in the area.

No special status plants or animals were observed by TDI biologists at the time of the survey.

Mature and Heritage Trees
The Escondido Municipal Code regulates removal of trees identified as Mature or Heritage (i.e., Protected), trees (Sec 33-1069). Mature and Protected trees are defined in the Escondido Municipal Code Sec 33-1052 as:
• Mature tree is any self-supporting woody perennial plant, native or ornamental, with a single welldefined stem or multiple stems supporting a crown of branches. The single stem, or one of the multiple stems of any mature oak tree (genus Quercus), shall have a diameter 4 inches or greater when measured at 4½ feet diameter at breast height (DBH) above the tree’s natural grade. All other mature trees shall have a diameter of 8 inches DBH, or greater, for a single stem or one of the multiple stems. • Protected tree is any oak (genus Quercus) which has a 10-inch or greater DBH, or any other species or individual specimen listed on the local historic register, or determined to substantially contribute to the historic character of a property or structure listed on the local historic register, pursuant to Article 40 of the Escondido Zoning Code.

The results of the tree survey is shown below (Table 1, Figure 2):

Table 1: Mature and Protected trees.

Number Scientific Name Common Name DBH Status
1 Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 5 1/8” None
2 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 20” Heritage
3 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 19.5” Heritage
4 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 20” Heritage
5 Olea europaea European Olive 20” Mature
6 Olea europaea European Olive 15.5” Mature
7 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 15.75” Heritage
8 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 21” Heritage
9 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 16” Heritage
10 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 7” Mature
11 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5.75” Mature
12 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 15.75” Heritage
13 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 5.25” Mature
14 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 1.5” None
15 Querus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 3.75” None
16 Schinus terebinthifolia Brazilian Pepper 10” Mature
17 Olea europaea European Olive 3.75” None
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 132 of 465 ends

1412
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 5 of 13 ends

Figure 2: Trees measured at the Hamilton Lane parcel.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 133 of 465 ends

1413
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 6 of 13 ends

Most of the trees on site are in the southern portion of the site. Two trees are in the west and center of the site, one a small black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia; #1) and the other a Heritage coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia; #2). The southern portion of the site contains 6 Heritage coast live oak trees (#s 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 12), 3 Mature coast live oak trees (#s 10, 11and 13), and 3 mature non-native trees (#s 5, 6, and 16). The other 4 trees do not meet the Protected tree criteria.

Boulders
The property has several natural boulder outcroppings and clusters which contribute to the site's visual, geological, and ecological diversity. Per the City Subdivisions and Zoning Code Chapter 33 Zoning, Article 64 Design Review, Sec 33-1356 Elements of design considerations. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, are considered visual resources must be preserved in a natural state, to the extent possible.

Boulders occur in the center and south of the site.

Impacts
The proposed project would create 5 building pads, a driveway and a stormwater retention basin (Figure 3).

Biological Resources
Impacts would occur to most of the parcel but as the vegetation community is considered disturbed because of the weed abatement order, impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would not occur.

No special status plant or animal species were detected, and none are expected to occur because of the repeated mowing. No impacts would occur to special status plant or animal species.

No wetlands occur on site and so no permits would be required from wetland permitting agencies. The site is not in a FEMA floodplain area. No impacts would occur to wetland vegetation or flood areas.

The parcel is bordered by development to the north, east, and west, and has a marginal connection through an adjacent parcel across Park Drive to the southwest to Felicita Creek. With the site being mowed annually, the site does not act as a significant nursery site for special status species and being surrounded on three sides by residential development, does not act a corridor. Impacts would not occur to wildlife corridors or to significant nursery sites.

The City is no longer participating in the local regional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort and the site was not in a Focused Planning Area of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP).

So, the proposed Project would neither impact regional conservation planning efforts under the NCCP or MHCP, and because of its location and features, development would not impact any future regional conservation planning efforts.

Two local policies pertain to the project: the City regulations and requirements that deal with Mature or Heritage Trees and Boulders.

Mature or Heritage Trees
Several Mature and Heritage Trees are located on Lots 2, 4, and 5 (Figure 3). The proposed project could potentially remove 2 Heritage coast live oak trees located within the pad of Lot 4 (#3) and Lot 5 (#7) while avoiding all other oak trees. A coast live oak tree on the boundary of Lots 4 and 5 (#4) would be avoided.

Two additional Mature olive trees (#s 5 and 6) would also be removed by grading Lot 5. Lastly a black locust tree (#1) meets neither criterion for being a Heritage or Mature tree would be removed to create the retention basin. All the impacted Heritage or Mature trees are far from the 3 roads that border the parcel and the loss of four trees would not significantly change views for area residents or the aesthetics of the area. It is expected that future homeowners will plant trees around their homes that will offset any aesthetic impacts from removal of the four trees. The Project would be in compliance with City’s Municipal Code requirements for trees.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 134 of 465 ends

1414
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 7 of 13 ends

Figure3: Proposed project over an aerial image of the site and tree locations.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 135 of 465 ends

1415
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 8 of 13 ends

Boulders
Many boulders occur on the site and impact would occur through grading for the shared driveway and pads on Lots 4 and 5 (Figure 3). The proposed grading of pads was adjusted to avoid the largest boulders on Lots 4 and 5, but limitations prevented the shared driveway from avoiding some boulders. All boulders in areas to be graded would be moved to Lots 2, 3, and 4 outside of grading areas to retain all boulders on the site. The Project would be in compliance with City’s boulder design considerations.

Conclusion
The proposed Project would not impact sensitive vegetation communities, sensitive species, wetlands or jurisdictional drainages, wildlife nursery sites, or corridors. Impacts to Mature and Heritage trees would not be significant and impacts to 4 coast live oaks would be offset by residential plantings. Impacts to boulders would be avoided by the grading design and by moving boulders away from driveways and pad area and retaining them on site.

In addition, all clearing or removal of vegetation will be performed prior to or after the bird breeding season, February 15 through September 15 (i.e., only between September 16 and February 14) to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and pertinent sections of the California Fish and Game (CFG) Code.

By avoiding clearing during the bird-breeding season, and designing to minimize impacts to trees and boulders, the proposed Project will not have a significant effect on biological resources and will be in compliance with the pertinent sections of the Escondido Municipal Code and design considerations.

If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 751 6169 or email me at [email protected].

Derek H. Langsford, PhD, CSE
Principal Scientist, Terrestrial and Wetland Resources
References
Calflora 2024. Calflora (native plant database) www.calflora.org. Accessed April through July 2024.

City of Escondido 2018. An Ordinance of The City Council of the City of Escondido Amending Chapter 11, Article 2 of the Escondido Municipal Code by adding Sections 11-39 through 11-52, pertaining to Abatement of Weeds and Rubbish https://fireprevention.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/escondidocode.pdf City of Escondido. Municipal Code. Section 33-1068 Vegetation Removal Permits. https://ecode360.com/43267342?highlight=dbh&searchId=22905359102687303#43267604 City of Escondido. Municipal Code. Section 33-1069. Vegetation Protection and Replacement Standards.

City of Escondido. Municipal Code Section 6-484(d)(1) Definitions.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Nos. 06073C1636G and 06073C1636H. https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Accessed June 2022.

Google Earth 2024. Accessed April through July 2024.

Historical Aerials. 2024. www.historicaerials.com. Accessed April 2024 through July 2024.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 136 of 465 ends

1416
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 9 of 13 ends

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) Volumes 1 & 2. Prepared for Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. March 2003. http://www.sandag.org/programs/environment/habitat_preservation/mhcp_vol1.pdf and mhcp_vol2.pdf.

Accessed June 2024.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed May 2024 https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory. Washington, D.C. Available:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed: June 2024.

Attachments
Attachment 1: Weed Abatement Notice
Attachment 2: Photos
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 137 of 465 ends

1417
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 10 of 13 ends

Attachment 1: Weed Abatement Notice
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 138 of 465 ends

1418
Item9.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 139 of 465 ends

1419
Item9.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 140 of 465 ends

1420
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 11 of 13 ends

Attchment 2: Photos
Photo 1: The northwest corner of the site towards the intersection of Hamilton Ane and Bernardo Drive.

Photo 2: Looking southeast across the parcel towards its interior.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 141 of 465 ends

1421
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 12 of 13 ends

Photo 3: Prominent rocks 115 feet from Hamiton Lane, some of which would need to be moved.

Photo 4: Looking southeast into the coast Live oak trees in the south of the site.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 142 of 465 ends

1422
Item9.

Tierra Data, Inc. Memo | July 9, 2024

Page 13 of 13 ends

Photo 5: Underneath oaks growing in the south of
the site.

Photo 6: Looking east along Hamilton
Lane.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 143 of 465 ends

1423
Item9.

Appendix C - Weed Abatement Orders
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 144 of 465 ends

1424
Item9.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 145 of 465 ends

1425
Item9.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 146 of 465 ends

1426
Item9.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 147 of 465 ends

1427
Item9.

Appendix D - Phase I Cultural
Resources Report - Confidential
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 148 of 465 ends

1428
Item9.

Appendix E – Monitoring Well
Decommissioning Documentation
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 149 of 465 ends

1429
Item9.
724 PRP Ltrs re MW-56 and MW-57 decomission 5 21 2009.doc

CHATHAM SITE PRP GROUP
1322 Scott Street, Suite 104
San Diego, CA 92106
(619)-546-8377
(619)-546-9980 FAX
Email: [email protected]
May 21, 2009
Mr. Joe Cully
Site Mitigation Program

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND CONTROL
5796 Corporate Ave
Cypress, CA 90630-4732
Subject: Decommissioning of Monitor Wells MW-56 and MW-57, Chatham Site Dear Joe:

Attached you will find a letter from Hargis + Associates, Inc. that documents that monitor wells MW-56 and MW-57 have been decommissioned. Please contact either Mike Palmer or me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Chatham Site PRP Group
Edward D. Modiano
Project Coordinator
Enclosure
cc: See Attached List
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 150 of 465 ends

1430
Item9.
724 PRP Ltrs re MW-56 and MW-57 decomission 5 21 2009.doc cc (with enclosure):

Number of Copies Individuals Receiving Transmittal
1 Mr. Joseph Cully/Mr. Theo Johnson/Mr. S.Steven Hariri, California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Cypress
1 Mr. Ed Modiano/Mr. Michael Palmer, de maximis, inc.
cc (without enclosure):

Number of Copies Individuals Receiving Transmittal
1 Mr. Greg Holmes, California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Cypress
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 151 of 465 ends

1431
Item9.

HARGIS + ASSOCIATES, INC.

HYDROGEOLOGY x ENGINEERING
Mission City Corporate Center
2365 Northside Drive, Suite C-100
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619.521.0165
Fax: 619.521.8580
Other Offices:

Mesa, AZ
Tucson, AZ
May 21, 2009

VIA E-MAIL & US MAIL
Mr. Ed Modiano
Project Coordinator

CHATHAM SITE PRP GROUP
1322 Scott Street, Suite 101
San Diego, California 92106
Re: Decommissioning of Monitor Wells MW-56 and
MW-57, Chatham Site, Escondido, California _
Dear Mr. Modiano:

This letter has been prepared by Hargis + Associates, Inc. (H+A) on behalf of the Chatham Site PRP Group (the Group) to document the decommissioning of water table monitor well MW-56 and deep monitor well MW-57 at the Chatham Site, Escondido, California.

Monitor well MW-56 was located on a residential property northwest of the Chatham Yard, at 1261 Gamble Lane, now owned by Mr. Simon Salam. At Mr. Salam’s request, H+A recommended the decommissioning of this well and monitor well MW-55 in a letter submitted to DTSC dated October 17, 2008. DTSC approved the decommissioning of monitor well MW-56, but not the decommissioning of MW-55, in a letter dated November 12, 2008. Decommissioning of monitor well MW-56 was conducted on December 4, 2008 by drilling out the casing and well materials and grouting the boring, in accordance with Well Destruction Permit No. LMON106106, issued by the County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health (DEH).

Monitor well MW-57 was located on a vacant land parcel on the south side of Hamilton Lane, between Bernardo Avenue and Our Country Road, owned by Mr. Jeff Badelt. At Mr. Badelt’s request, and following the successful installation of replacement monitor well MW-67 north of the parcel, H+A recommended the decommissioning of monitor well MW-57 in a letter submitted to DTSC dated October 17, 2008. DTSC approved the decommissioning of monitor well MW-57 in the letter dated November 12, 2008. Decommissioning of monitor well MW-57 by pressure grouting was completed on January 16, 2009, in general accordance with Well Destruction Permit No. LMON106099, issued by DEH.

Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 152 of 465 ends

1432
Item9.

HARGIS + ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Ed Modiano
May 21, 2009

Page 2 ends

If you have any questions or comments, please contact us.

Sincerely,
HARGIS + ASSOCIATES, INC.

Greg T. Cranham, PG 5897, CEG 1994 James D. Schwall, PE CH5044 Senior Hydrogeologist Project Manager
GTC/JDS/ama
724 Ltrs modiano08 WellDstrctn re MW-56 and MW-57.doc
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 153 of 465 ends

1433
Item9.

Appendix F – Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 154 of 465 ends

1434
Item9.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
1100 Hamilton Lane
Escondido, California 92029
April 22, 2025
Prepared For:

Hamilton Bernardo LLC
PO Box 1795
La Jolla, CA 92038
Project Number 25-02-025
Prepared by:

Weis Environmental, LLC
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070
www.weisenviro.com
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 155 of 465 ends

1435
Item9.
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116, Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070
www.weisenviro.com
April 22, 2025
Lee Duran
Hamilton Bernardo LLC
PO Box 1795
La Jolla, CA 92038
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
1100 Hamilton Lane
Escondido, California
Project Number 25-02-025
Dear Mr. Duran:

Weis Environmental, LLC has completed the contracted environmental consulting services for the above-referenced project. The services were performed in accordance with our proposal and agreement fully executed by all parties. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed in accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E1527-21 and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 312. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Weis Environmental, LLC
Daniel Weis. R.E.H.S.

Environmental Manager
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 156 of 465 ends

1436
Item9.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope of the Assessment........................................................................................................1

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions....................................................................................................2

1.4 Special Terms and Conditions................................................................................................3

1.5 Limiting Conditions and Deviations ......................................................................................3

1.6 Data Failure and Data Gaps ...................................................................................................3

1.7 Reliance..................................................................................................................................3

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................4

2.1 Location and Legal Description .............................................................................................4

2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics............................................................................................4

2.3 Current Use of the Site...........................................................................................................4

2.4 Description of Site Improvements..........................................................................................4

2.5 Utilities...................................................................................................................................4

2.6 Description of Adjoining Properties ......................................................................................5

3.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ..................................................................................................................6

3.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................6

3.2 Hydrology ..............................................................................................................................6

3.3 Geology..................................................................................................................................6

3.4 Hydrogeology.........................................................................................................................7

3.5 Oil and Gas Exploration.........................................................................................................7

4.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ...........................................................................................8

4.1 Title Records ..........................................................................................................................8

4.2 Environmental Liens ..............................................................................................................8

4.3 Activity and Use Limitations .................................................................................................8

4.4 Specialized or Actual Knowledge or Experience...................................................................8

4.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ..............................................8

4.6 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .....................................................................9

4.7 Owner, Property Manager and Occupant Information...........................................................9

4.8 Reason for Performing Phase I ESA......................................................................................9

4.9 Proceedings Involving the Site...............................................................................................9

4.10 Other Provided Documents ....................................................................................................9

5.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW.......................................................................................10

5.1 Standard ASTM Regulatory Database Search .....................................................................10

5.2 Non-ASTM Regulatory Database Search ............................................................................12

5.3 Regulatory Agency File Reviews.........................................................................................13

6.0 HISTORICAL RESOURCE REVIEW .......................................................................................14

6.1 Aerial Photographs...............................................................................................................14

6.2 Topographic Maps ...............................................................................................................15

6.3 Other Historical Sources ......................................................................................................15 Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"

Page 157 of 465 ends

Escondido City CouncilAugust 5, 2026

Escondido City Council
August 5, 2026