Agenda Packet — Hayward City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 5 of 6)

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 310

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
53834.1

2.9000e-
004

2.6400e-
003

2.2200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.8728

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.8899
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
158543

8.5000e-
004

7.7700e-
003

6.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000

8.4605

1.6000e-
004

8.5108
Total

1.1400e-
003

0.0104

8.7500e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

11.4006
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
tons/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
53834.1

2.9000e-
004

2.6400e-
003

2.2200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.8728

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.8899
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
158543

8.5000e-
004

7.7700e-
003

6.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000

8.4605

1.6000e-
004

8.5108
Total

1.1400e-
003

0.0104

8.7500e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

11.4006
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 25 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 311

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
34756.8

7.2155

3.3000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.2426
Parking Lot
11060

2.2961

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.3047
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
432287

89.7429

4.1200e-
003

7.8000e-
004

90.0796
Total

99.2545

4.5600e-
003

8.6000e-
004

99.6269
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
34756.8

7.2155

3.3000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.2426
Parking Lot
11060

2.2961

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.3047
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
432287

89.7429

4.1200e-
003

7.8000e-
004

90.0796
Total

99.2545

4.5600e-
003

8.6000e-
004

99.6269
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 26 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 312

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

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

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Unmitigated

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 27 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 313

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

0.0616

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4584

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Total

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
tons/yr
MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0616

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4584

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Total

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 28 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 314

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Unmitigated

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986

7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 29 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 315

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.495877 /

0.303925

0.9352

0.0162

3.9000e-
004

1.4558
Parking Lot
0 / 0

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

26.3764 /
0 37.9972

0.8608

0.0206

65.6429
Total

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.495877 /

0.303925

0.9352

0.0162

3.9000e-
004

1.4558
Parking Lot
0 / 0

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

26.3764 /
0 37.9972

0.8608

0.0206

65.6429
Total

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 30 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 316

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Unmitigated

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 31 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 317

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

2.59 0.5258

0.0311

0.0000

1.3025
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
107.22

21.7647

1.2863

0.0000

53.9211
Total

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

2.59 0.5258

0.0311

0.0000

1.3025
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
107.22

21.7647

1.2863

0.0000

53.9211
Total

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 32 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 318

11.0 Vegetation

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:15 PM

Page 33 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 319

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

2.79 1000sqft

0.99 2,785.00
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
114.06
1000sqft

5.62 114,060.00
0 Parking Lot

79.00 Space

0.71 31,600.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
457.68

0.021
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Point Eden Industrial Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 1 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 320
Project Characteristics - Assume start of construciton in July 2021 and operation in 2022. Entered PGE RPS Land Use - per site plans
Construction Phase - Architectural coating updated to be half way through building construction for standard practices Demolition - building sf measured from google earth
Architectural Coating - Per BAAQMD Rules
Area Coating - Per BAAQMD rules
Energy Use -
Vehicle Trips - Trip gen rates per March 2021 Kittelson traffic study

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Nonresidential_Exterior
150.00
100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Parking
150.00
100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating
EF_Residential_Exterior
150.00
100.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

20.00 115.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
9/23/2022
9/9/2022
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
8/27/2022
4/4/2022
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
2,790.00
2,785.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

0.06 0.99
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

2.62 5.62
tblProjectCharacteristics
CH4IntensityFactor

0.029

0.021
tblProjectCharacteristics
CO2IntensityFactor
641.35
457.68
tblProjectCharacteristics
N2OIntensityFactor

0.006

0.004
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 9.74
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

1.68 1.74
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 2 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 321

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

3.9461

40.5309

22.1092

0.0425

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,131.3104
4,131.3104

1.1952

0.0000
4,158.0774
2022

11.6968

19.4994

20.4019

0.0420

0.7704

0.8991

1.6695

0.2080

0.8508

1.0588

0.0000
4,087.0710
4,087.0710

0.7366

0.0000
4,103.8999
Maximum

11.6968

40.5309

22.1092

0.0425

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,131.3104
4,131.3104

1.1952

0.0000
4,158.0774
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

3.9461

40.5309

22.1092

0.0425

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,131.3104
4,131.3104

1.1952

0.0000
4,158.0774
2022

11.6968

19.4994

20.4019

0.0420

0.7704

0.8991

1.6695

0.2080

0.8508

1.0588

0.0000
4,087.0710
4,087.0710

0.7366

0.0000
4,103.8999
Maximum

11.6968

40.5309

22.1092

0.0425

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,131.3104
4,131.3104

1.1952

0.0000
4,158.0774
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 3 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 322

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Energy

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
Mobile

0.3791

1.6470

4.2571

0.0159

1.3690

0.0135

1.3824

0.3663

0.0126

0.3789
1,609.2952
1,609.2952

0.0543
1,610.6516
Total

3.2364

1.7042

4.3251

0.0163

1.3690

0.0179

1.3869

0.3663

0.0170

0.3833
1,677.7917
1,677.7917

0.0557

1.2500e-
003
1,679.5577
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Energy

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
Mobile

0.3791

1.6470

4.2571

0.0159

1.3690

0.0135

1.3824

0.3663

0.0126

0.3789
1,609.2952
1,609.2952

0.0543
1,610.6516
Total

3.2364

1.7042

4.3251

0.0163

1.3690

0.0179

1.3869

0.3663

0.0170

0.3833
1,677.7917
1,677.7917

0.0557

1.2500e-
003
1,679.5577
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 4 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 323

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
7/5/2021
7/30/2021
5 20
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
7/31/2021
8/13/2021
5 10
3 Grading
Grading
8/14/2021
9/10/2021
5 20
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
9/11/2021
7/29/2022
5 230
5 Paving
Paving
7/30/2022
8/26/2022
5 20
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
4/4/2022
9/9/2022
5 115
OffRoad Equipment
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 175,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 58,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,896 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 0.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 5 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 324
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
1 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Pavers
2 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 6 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 325

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.6792

0.0000

0.6792

0.1028

0.0000

0.1028

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

0.6792

1.5513

2.2305

0.1028

1.4411

1.5439
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 63.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 62.00

24.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 12.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 7 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 326

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0245

0.8335

0.1757

2.4700e-
003

0.0550

2.6100e-
003

0.0577

0.0151

2.5000e-
003

0.0176
264.5716
264.5716

0.0131
264.8998
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Total

0.0728

0.8617

0.5442

3.6600e-
003

0.1783

3.3900e-
003

0.1817

0.0478

3.2100e-
003

0.0510
383.3655
383.3655

0.0158
383.7601
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.6792

0.0000

0.6792

0.1028

0.0000

0.1028

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.4411

0.0000
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

0.6792

1.5513

2.2305

0.1028

1.4411

1.5439

0.0000
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 8 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 327

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0245

0.8335

0.1757

2.4700e-
003

0.0550

2.6100e-
003

0.0577

0.0151

2.5000e-
003

0.0176
264.5716
264.5716

0.0131
264.8998
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Total

0.0728

0.8617

0.5442

3.6600e-
003

0.1783

3.3900e-
003

0.1817

0.0478

3.2100e-
003

0.0510
383.3655
383.3655

0.0158
383.7601
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 9 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 328

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0579

0.0338

0.4421

1.4300e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
142.5527
142.5527

3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Total

0.0579

0.0338

0.4421

1.4300e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
142.5527
142.5527

3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

1.8809

0.0000
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116

0.0000
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 10 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 329

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0579

0.0338

0.4421

1.4300e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
142.5527
142.5527

3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Total

0.0579

0.0338

0.4421

1.4300e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
142.5527
142.5527

3.1900e-
003
142.6324
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.5523

0.0000

6.5523

3.3675

0.0000

3.3675

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

1.1599

1.0671

1.0671
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Total

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

6.5523

1.1599

7.7123

3.3675

1.0671

4.4346
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 11 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 330

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Total

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.5523

0.0000

6.5523

3.3675

0.0000

3.3675

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

1.1599

1.0671

0.0000
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Total

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

6.5523

1.1599

7.7123

3.3675

1.0671

4.4346

0.0000
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 12 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 331

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Total

0.0482

0.0282

0.3685

1.1900e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
118.7939
118.7939

2.6600e-
003
118.8603
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.9013
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Total

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.9013
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 13 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 332

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0744

2.4802

0.5849

6.5400e-
003

0.1625

5.3700e-
003

0.1678

0.0468

5.1400e-
003

0.0519
693.5005
693.5005

0.0326
694.3142
Worker

0.1994

0.1165

1.5229

4.9300e-
003

0.5093

3.2000e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.9500e-
003

0.1381
491.0149
491.0149

0.0110
491.2893
Total

0.2738

2.5967

2.1078

0.0115

0.6718

8.5700e-
003

0.6804

0.1819

8.0900e-
003

0.1900
1,184.5154
1,184.5154

0.0435
1,185.6035
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.0000
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Total

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.0000
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 14 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 333

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0744

2.4802

0.5849

6.5400e-
003

0.1625

5.3700e-
003

0.1678

0.0468

5.1400e-
003

0.0519
693.5005
693.5005

0.0326
694.3142
Worker

0.1994

0.1165

1.5229

4.9300e-
003

0.5093

3.2000e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.9500e-
003

0.1381
491.0149
491.0149

0.0110
491.2893
Total

0.2738

2.5967

2.1078

0.0115

0.6718

8.5700e-
003

0.6804

0.1819

8.0900e-
003

0.1900
1,184.5154
1,184.5154

0.0435
1,185.6035
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 15 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 334

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0694

2.3506

0.5500

6.4800e-
003

0.1625

4.6600e-
003

0.1671

0.0468

4.4500e-
003

0.0512
686.7468
686.7468

0.0311
687.5248
Worker

0.1856

0.1045

1.4033

4.7400e-
003

0.5093

3.1300e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.8800e-
003

0.1380
472.9951
472.9951

9.8600e-
003
473.2416
Total

0.2550

2.4551

1.9533

0.0112

0.6718

7.7900e-
003

0.6796

0.1819

7.3300e-
003

0.1892
1,159.7419
1,159.7419

0.0410
1,160.7664
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 16 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 335

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0694

2.3506

0.5500

6.4800e-
003

0.1625

4.6600e-
003

0.1671

0.0468

4.4500e-
003

0.0512
686.7468
686.7468

0.0311
687.5248
Worker

0.1856

0.1045

1.4033

4.7400e-
003

0.5093

3.1300e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.8800e-
003

0.1380
472.9951
472.9951

9.8600e-
003
473.2416
Total

0.2550

2.4551

1.9533

0.0112

0.6718

7.7900e-
003

0.6796

0.1819

7.3300e-
003

0.1892
1,159.7419
1,159.7419

0.0410
1,160.7664
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.1028

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.5225
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Paving

0.0930

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.1958

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.5225
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 17 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 336

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0449

0.0253

0.3395

1.1500e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
114.4343
114.4343

2.3800e-
003
114.4939
Total

0.0449

0.0253

0.3395

1.1500e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
114.4343
114.4343

2.3800e-
003
114.4939
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.1028

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.0000
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Paving

0.0930

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.1958

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.0000
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 18 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 337

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0449

0.0253

0.3395

1.1500e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
114.4343
114.4343

2.3800e-
003
114.4939
Total

0.0449

0.0253

0.3395

1.1500e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
114.4343
114.4343

2.3800e-
003
114.4939
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

9.4952

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total

9.6997

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 19 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 338

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0359

0.0202

0.2716

9.2000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

91.5474

1.9100e-
003

91.5951
Total

0.0359

0.0202

0.2716

9.2000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

91.5474

1.9100e-
003

91.5951
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

9.4952

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total

9.6997

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 20 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 339

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0359

0.0202

0.2716

9.2000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

91.5474

1.9100e-
003

91.5951
Total

0.0359

0.0202

0.2716

9.2000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

91.5474

1.9100e-
003

91.5951
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 21 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 340
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

0.3791

1.6470

4.2571

0.0159

1.3690

0.0135

1.3824

0.3663

0.0126

0.3789
1,609.2952
1,609.2952

0.0543
1,610.6516
Unmitigated

0.3791

1.6470

4.2571

0.0159

1.3690

0.0135

1.3824

0.3663

0.0126

0.3789
1,609.2952
1,609.2952

0.0543
1,610.6516

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

27.17 6.86

2.93 49,729
49,729
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
198.46
191.62
191.62
573,710
573,710
Total
225.64
198.48
194.55
623,440
623,440
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-
W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
General Office Building

9.50 7.30

7.30 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

9.50 7.30

7.30 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30

7.30 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 22 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 341

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

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Parking Lot

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 23 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 342

1.5900e-
003

0.0145

0.0122

9.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

17.3518

3.3000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

17.4549
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
434.365

4.6800e-
003

0.0426

0.0358

2.6000e-
004

3.2400e-
003

51.1018

9.8000e-
004

9.4000e-
004

51.4055
Total

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.5000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2600e-
003

68.8604
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
General Office
Building

0.147491

1.5900e-
003

0.0145

0.0122

9.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

17.3518

3.3000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

17.4549
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.434365

4.6800e-
003

0.0426

0.0358

2.6000e-
004

3.2400e-
003

51.1018

9.8000e-
004

9.4000e-
004

51.4055
Total

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.5000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2600e-
003

68.8604
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 24 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 343

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

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

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Unmitigated

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 25 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 344

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

0.3375

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.5117

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.8600e-
003

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Total

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.3375

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.5117

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.8600e-
003

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Total

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:17 PM

Page 26 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 345

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

11.0 Vegetation

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

Page 27 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer 346

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

2.79 1000sqft

0.99 2,785.00
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
114.06
1000sqft

5.62 114,060.00
0 Parking Lot

79.00 Space

0.71 31,600.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
457.68

0.021
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Point Eden Industrial Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 1 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 347
Project Characteristics - Assume start of construciton in July 2021 and operation in 2022. Entered PGE RPS Land Use - per site plans
Construction Phase - Architectural coating updated to be half way through building construction for standard practices Demolition - building sf measured from google earth
Architectural Coating - Per BAAQMD Rules
Area Coating - Per BAAQMD rules
Energy Use -
Vehicle Trips - Trip gen rates per March 2021 Kittelson traffic study

20.00 115.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
9/23/2022
9/9/2022
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
8/27/2022
4/4/2022
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
2,790.00
2,785.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

0.06 0.99
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

2.62 5.62
tblProjectCharacteristics
CH4IntensityFactor

0.029

0.021
tblProjectCharacteristics
CO2IntensityFactor
641.35
457.68
tblProjectCharacteristics
N2OIntensityFactor

0.006

0.004
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 9.74
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

1.68 1.74
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 2 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 348

3.9495

40.5389

22.0984

0.0424

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,117.4743
4,117.4743

1.1950

0.0000
4,144.2527
2022

11.7147

19.5464

20.3695

0.0414

0.7704

0.8993

1.6697

0.2080

0.8509

1.0590

0.0000
4,025.0611
4,025.0611

0.7363

0.0000
4,041.9322
Maximum

11.7147

40.5389

22.0984

0.0424

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,117.4743
4,117.4743

1.1950

0.0000
4,144.2527
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021

3.9495

40.5389

22.0984

0.0424

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,117.4743
4,117.4743

1.1950

0.0000
4,144.2527
2022

11.7147

19.5464

20.3695

0.0414

0.7704

0.8993

1.6697

0.2080

0.8509

1.0590

0.0000
4,025.0611
4,025.0611

0.7363

0.0000
4,041.9322
Maximum

11.7147

40.5389

22.0984

0.0424

18.2141

2.0454

20.2595

9.9699

1.8818

11.8517

0.0000
4,117.4743
4,117.4743

1.1950

0.0000
4,144.2527
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 3 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 349

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Energy

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
Mobile

0.3314

1.7369

4.2143

0.0149

1.3690

0.0136

1.3825

0.3663

0.0127

0.3790
1,507.2189
1,507.2189

0.0549
1,508.5913
Total

3.1887

1.7942

4.2822

0.0152

1.3690

0.0180

1.3869

0.3663

0.0171

0.3834
1,575.7155
1,575.7155

0.0563

1.2500e-
003
1,577.4975
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Energy

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
Mobile

0.3314

1.7369

4.2143

0.0149

1.3690

0.0136

1.3825

0.3663

0.0127

0.3790
1,507.2189
1,507.2189

0.0549
1,508.5913
Total

3.1887

1.7942

4.2822

0.0152

1.3690

0.0180

1.3869

0.3663

0.0171

0.3834
1,575.7155
1,575.7155

0.0563

1.2500e-
003
1,577.4975
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 4 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 350

0.00 0.00

Page 5 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 351
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
1 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 6 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 352

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.6792

0.0000

0.6792

0.1028

0.0000

0.1028

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.4411

1.4411
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

0.6792

1.5513

2.2305

0.1028

1.4411

1.5439
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.00 63.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 62.00

24.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 12.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 7 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 353

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0252

0.8530

0.1886

2.4300e-
003

0.0550

2.6600e-
003

0.0577

0.0151

2.5400e-
003

0.0176
260.0988
260.0988

0.0138
260.4430
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Total

0.0763

0.8878

0.5333

3.5300e-
003

0.1783

3.4400e-
003

0.1817

0.0478

3.2500e-
003

0.0510
369.5293
369.5293

0.0163
369.9354
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.6792

0.0000

0.6792

0.1028

0.0000

0.1028

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

1.5513

1.4411

0.0000
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Total

3.1651

31.4407

21.5650

0.0388

0.6792

1.5513

2.2305

0.1028

1.4411

1.5439

0.0000
3,747.9449
3,747.9449

1.0549
3,774.3174
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 8 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 354

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0252

0.8530

0.1886

2.4300e-
003

0.0550

2.6600e-
003

0.0577

0.0151

2.5400e-
003

0.0176
260.0988
260.0988

0.0138
260.4430
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Total

0.0763

0.8878

0.5333

3.5300e-
003

0.1783

3.4400e-
003

0.1817

0.0478

3.2500e-
003

0.0510
369.5293
369.5293

0.0163
369.9354
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

1.8809

1.8809
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 9 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 355

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0613

0.0418

0.4137

1.3200e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
131.3166
131.3166

2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Total

0.0613

0.0418

0.4137

1.3200e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
131.3166
131.3166

2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.0663

0.0000

18.0663

9.9307

0.0000

9.9307

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

2.0445

1.8809

0.0000
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Total

3.8882

40.4971

21.1543

0.0380

18.0663

2.0445

20.1107

9.9307

1.8809

11.8116

0.0000
3,685.6569
3,685.6569

1.1920
3,715.4573
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 10 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 356

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0613

0.0418

0.4137

1.3200e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
131.3166
131.3166

2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Total

0.0613

0.0418

0.4137

1.3200e-
003

0.1479

9.3000e-
004

0.1488

0.0392

8.6000e-
004

0.0401
131.3166
131.3166

2.9700e-
003
131.3909
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.5523

0.0000

6.5523

3.3675

0.0000

3.3675

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

1.1599

1.0671

1.0671
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Total

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

6.5523

1.1599

7.7123

3.3675

1.0671

4.4346
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 11 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 357

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Total

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.5523

0.0000

6.5523

3.3675

0.0000

3.3675

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

1.1599

1.0671

0.0000
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Total

2.2903

24.7367

15.8575

0.0296

6.5523

1.1599

7.7123

3.3675

1.0671

4.4346

0.0000
2,871.9285
2,871.9285

0.9288
2,895.1495
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 12 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 358

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Total

0.0511

0.0348

0.3447

1.1000e-
003

0.1232

7.8000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.1000e-
004

0.0334
109.4305
109.4305

2.4800e-
003
109.4924
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.9013
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Total

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.9013
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 13 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 359

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0788

2.5015

0.6722

6.3800e-
003

0.1625

5.5600e-
003

0.1680

0.0468

5.3200e-
003

0.0521
675.9052
675.9052

0.0352
676.7855
Worker

0.2112

0.1439

1.4248

4.5400e-
003

0.5093

3.2000e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.9500e-
003

0.1381
452.3127
452.3127

0.0102
452.5686
Total

0.2900

2.6454

2.0971

0.0109

0.6718

8.7600e-
003

0.6805

0.1819

8.2700e-
003

0.1901
1,128.2179
1,128.2179

0.0454
1,129.3541
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.0000
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Total

1.9009

17.4321

16.5752

0.0269

0.9586

0.9013

0.0000
2,553.3639
2,553.3639

0.6160
2,568.7643
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 14 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 360

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0788

2.5015

0.6722

6.3800e-
003

0.1625

5.5600e-
003

0.1680

0.0468

5.3200e-
003

0.0521
675.9052
675.9052

0.0352
676.7855
Worker

0.2112

0.1439

1.4248

4.5400e-
003

0.5093

3.2000e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.9500e-
003

0.1381
452.3127
452.3127

0.0102
452.5686
Total

0.2900

2.6454

2.0971

0.0109

0.6718

8.7600e-
003

0.6805

0.1819

8.2700e-
003

0.1901
1,128.2179
1,128.2179

0.0454
1,129.3541
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.7612
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 15 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 361

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0735

2.3683

0.6319

6.3100e-
003

0.1625

4.8300e-
003

0.1673

0.0468

4.6200e-
003

0.0514
669.2134
669.2134

0.0336
670.0543
Worker

0.1971

0.1290

1.3075

4.3700e-
003

0.5093

3.1300e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.8800e-
003

0.1380
435.7311
435.7311

9.1600e-
003
435.9601
Total

0.2706

2.4973

1.9394

0.0107

0.6718

7.9600e-
003

0.6797

0.1819

7.5000e-
003

0.1894
1,104.9444
1,104.9444

0.0428
1,106.0145
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Total

1.7062

15.6156

16.3634

0.0269

0.8090

0.7612

0.0000
2,554.3336
2,554.3336

0.6120
2,569.6322
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 16 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 362

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0735

2.3683

0.6319

6.3100e-
003

0.1625

4.8300e-
003

0.1673

0.0468

4.6200e-
003

0.0514
669.2134
669.2134

0.0336
670.0543
Worker

0.1971

0.1290

1.3075

4.3700e-
003

0.5093

3.1300e-
003

0.5125

0.1351

2.8800e-
003

0.1380
435.7311
435.7311

9.1600e-
003
435.9601
Total

0.2706

2.4973

1.9394

0.0107

0.6718

7.9600e-
003

0.6797

0.1819

7.5000e-
003

0.1894
1,104.9444
1,104.9444

0.0428
1,106.0145
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.1028

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.5225
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Paving

0.0930

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.1958

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.5225
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 17 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 363

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0477

0.0312

0.3163

1.0600e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
105.4188
105.4188

2.2200e-
003
105.4742
Total

0.0477

0.0312

0.3163

1.0600e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
105.4188
105.4188

2.2200e-
003
105.4742
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.1028

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.0000
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Paving

0.0930

0.0000

0.0000
Total

1.1958

11.1249

14.5805

0.0228

0.5679

0.5225

0.0000
2,207.6603
2,207.6603

0.7140
2,225.5104
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 18 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 364

3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0477

0.0312

0.3163

1.0600e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
105.4188
105.4188

2.2200e-
003
105.4742
Total

0.0477

0.0312

0.3163

1.0600e-
003

0.1232

7.6000e-
004

0.1240

0.0327

7.0000e-
004

0.0334
105.4188
105.4188

2.2200e-
003
105.4742
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

9.4952

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total

9.6997

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 19 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 365

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0382

0.0250

0.2531

8.5000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

84.3350

1.7700e-
003

84.3794
Total

0.0382

0.0250

0.2531

8.5000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

84.3350

1.7700e-
003

84.3794
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

9.4952

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.2045

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Total

9.6997

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 20 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 366

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0382

0.0250

0.2531

8.5000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

84.3350

1.7700e-
003

84.3794
Total

0.0382

0.0250

0.2531

8.5000e-
004

0.0986

6.1000e-
004

0.0992

0.0262

5.6000e-
004

0.0267

84.3350

1.7700e-
003

84.3794
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 21 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 367
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

0.3314

1.7369

4.2143

0.0149

1.3690

0.0136

1.3825

0.3663

0.0127

0.3790
1,507.2189
1,507.2189

0.0549
1,508.5913
Unmitigated

0.3314

1.7369

4.2143

0.0149

1.3690

0.0136

1.3825

0.3663

0.0127

0.3790
1,507.2189
1,507.2189

0.0549
1,508.5913

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

27.17 6.86

2.93 49,729
49,729
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

9.50 7.30

7.30 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

9.50 7.30

7.30 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30

7.30 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 22 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 368

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

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.4000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2500e-
003

68.8604

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Parking Lot

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.576985

0.039376

0.193723

0.112069

0.016317

0.005358

0.017943

0.025814

0.002614

0.002274

0.005874

0.000887

0.000768
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 23 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 369

1.5900e-
003

0.0145

0.0122

9.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

17.3518

3.3000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

17.4549
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
434.365

4.6800e-
003

0.0426

0.0358

2.6000e-
004

3.2400e-
003

51.1018

9.8000e-
004

9.4000e-
004

51.4055
Total

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.5000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2600e-
003

0.147491

1.5900e-
003

0.0145

0.0122

9.0000e-
005

1.1000e-
003

17.3518

3.3000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

17.4549
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

0.434365

4.6800e-
003

0.0426

0.0358

2.6000e-
004

3.2400e-
003

51.1018

9.8000e-
004

9.4000e-
004

51.4055
Total

6.2700e-
003

0.0570

0.0479

3.5000e-
004

4.3400e-
003

68.4537

1.3100e-
003

1.2600e-
003

68.8604
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 24 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 370

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

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

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Unmitigated

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 25 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 371

0.3375

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.5117

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.8600e-
003

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Total

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.3375

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

2.5117

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.8600e-
003

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Total

2.8510

1.8000e-
004

0.0200

0.0000

7.0000e-
005

0.0429

1.1000e-
004

0.0457
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:12 PM

Page 26 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 372

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

11.0 Vegetation

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

Page 27 of 27 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter 373

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

2.79 1000sqft

0.99 2,785.00
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
114.06
1000sqft

5.62 114,060.00
0 Parking Lot

79.00 Space

0.71 31,600.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2030
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
457.68

0.021
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Point Eden Industrial Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 1 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 374
Project Characteristics - Assume start of construciton in July 2021 and operation in 2030 for GHG analysis. Entered PGE RPS Land Use - per site plans
Construction Phase - Architectural coating updated to be half way through building construction for standard practices Demolition - building sf measured from google earth
Architectural Coating - Per BAAQMD Rules
Area Coating - Per BAAQMD rules
Energy Use -
Vehicle Trips - Trip gen rates per March 2021 Kittelson traffic study

20.00 115.00
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseEndDate
9/23/2022
9/9/2022
tblConstructionPhase
PhaseStartDate
8/27/2022
4/4/2022
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
2,790.00
2,785.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

0.06 0.99
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

2.62 5.62
tblProjectCharacteristics
CH4IntensityFactor

0.029

0.021
tblProjectCharacteristics
CO2IntensityFactor
641.35
457.68
tblProjectCharacteristics
N2OIntensityFactor

0.006

0.004
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

11.03 9.74
tblVehicleTrips
WD_TR

1.68 1.74
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 2 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 375

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1621

1.5764

1.2342

2.4500e-
003

0.1922

0.0761

0.2682

0.0924

0.0709

0.1633

0.0000
215.8787
215.8787

0.0475

0.0000
217.0670
2022

0.7187

1.5519

1.6346

3.2900e-
003

0.0552

0.0717

0.1269

0.0150

0.0676

0.0826

0.0000
290.0551
290.0551

0.0520

0.0000
291.3551
Maximum

0.7187

1.5764

1.6346

3.2900e-
003

0.1922

0.0761

0.2682

0.0924

0.0709

0.1633

0.0000
290.0551
290.0551

0.0520

0.0000
291.3551
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
tons/yr
MT/yr
2021

0.1621

1.5764

1.2342

2.4500e-
003

0.1922

0.0761

0.2682

0.0924

0.0709

0.1633

0.0000
215.8785
215.8785

0.0475

0.0000
217.0668
2022

0.7187

1.5519

1.6346

3.2900e-
003

0.0552

0.0717

0.1269

0.0150

0.0676

0.0826

0.0000
290.0548
290.0548

0.0520

0.0000
291.3548
Maximum

0.7187

1.5764

1.6346

3.2900e-
003

0.1922

0.0761

0.2682

0.0924

0.0709

0.1633

0.0000
290.0548
290.0548

0.0520

0.0000
291.3548
Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 3 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 376

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Energy

1.1500e-
003

0.0104

8.7400e-
003

6.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000
110.5878
110.5878

4.7700e-
003

1.0800e-
003
111.0275
Mobile

0.0380

0.1974

0.4568

2.1300e-
003

0.2319

1.4000e-
003

0.2333

0.0622

1.3000e-
003

0.0635

0.0000
196.9655
196.9655

6.0100e-
003

0.0000
197.1157
Waste

0.0000

22.2904

0.0000

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Water

0.0000

8.5253

30.4071

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Total

0.5593

0.2078

0.4673

2.1900e-
003

0.2319

2.2000e-
003

0.2341

0.0622

2.1000e-
003

0.0643

30.8158
337.9638
368.7796

2.2052

0.0220
430.4692
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter
Start Date
End Date
Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 7-5-2021
10-4-2021

1.0138

1.0138
2 10-5-2021
1-4-2022

0.7286

0.7286
3 1-5-2022
4-4-2022

0.6496

0.6496
4 4-5-2022
7-4-2022

1.0139

1.0139
5 7-5-2022
9-30-2022

0.5699

0.5699
Highest

1.0139

1.0139
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 4 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 377

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Area

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Energy

1.1500e-
003

0.0104

8.7400e-
003

6.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000
110.5878
110.5878

4.7700e-
003

1.0800e-
003
111.0275
Mobile

0.0380

0.1974

0.4568

2.1300e-
003

0.2319

1.4000e-
003

0.2333

0.0622

1.3000e-
003

0.0635

0.0000
196.9655
196.9655

6.0100e-
003

0.0000
197.1157
Waste

0.0000

22.2904

0.0000

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Water

0.0000

8.5253

30.4071

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Total

0.5593

0.2078

0.4673

2.1900e-
003

0.2319

2.2000e-
003

0.2341

0.0622

2.1000e-
003

0.0643

30.8158
337.9638
368.7796

2.2052

0.0220
430.4692
Mitigated Operational

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

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 5 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 378
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
7/5/2021
7/30/2021
5 20
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
7/31/2021
8/13/2021
5 10
3 Grading
Grading
8/14/2021
9/10/2021
5 20
4 Building Construction
Building Construction
9/11/2021
7/29/2022
5 230
5 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
4/4/2022
9/9/2022
5 115
6 Paving
Paving
7/30/2022
8/26/2022
5 20
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 175,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 58,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,896 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 0.71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 6 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 379
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
Grading
Excavators
1 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 8.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 8.00
80 0.38
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 7 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 380

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

6.7900e-
003

0.0000

6.7900e-
003

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0317

0.3144

0.2157

3.9000e-
004

0.0155

0.0144

0.0000

34.0008

9.5700e-
003

0.0000

34.2400
Total

0.0317

0.3144

0.2157

3.9000e-
004

6.7900e-
003

0.0155

0.0223

1.0300e-
003

0.0144

0.0154

0.0000

34.0008

9.5700e-
003

0.0000

34.2400
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

0.00 63.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 62.00

24.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 12.00

0.00 0.00

10.80 7.30

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 8 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 381

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

2.5000e-
004

8.5000e-
003

1.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

5.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.3831

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.3862
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Total

7.1000e-
004

8.8200e-
003

5.1700e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.7200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

4.7000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

3.3851

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.3887
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

6.7900e-
003

0.0000

6.7900e-
003

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

1.0300e-
003

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0317

0.3144

0.2157

3.9000e-
004

0.0155

0.0144

0.0000

34.0007

9.5700e-
003

0.0000

34.2400
Total

0.0317

0.3144

0.2157

3.9000e-
004

6.7900e-
003

0.0155

0.0223

1.0300e-
003

0.0144

0.0154

0.0000

34.0007

9.5700e-
003

0.0000

34.2400
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 9 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 382

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

2.5000e-
004

8.5000e-
003

1.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

5.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

5.6000e-
004

1.5000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

1.7000e-
004

0.0000

2.3831

1.2000e-
004

0.0000

2.3862
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Total

7.1000e-
004

8.8200e-
003

5.1700e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.7200e-
003

4.0000e-
005

1.7500e-
003

4.7000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000

3.3851

1.4000e-
004

0.0000

3.3887
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0903

0.0000

0.0903

0.0497

0.0000

0.0497

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0194

0.2025

0.1058

1.9000e-
004

0.0102

9.4000e-
003

0.0000

16.7179

5.4100e-
003

0.0000

16.8530
Total

0.0194

0.2025

0.1058

1.9000e-
004

0.0903

0.0102

0.1006

0.0497

9.4000e-
003

0.0591

0.0000

16.7179

5.4100e-
003

0.0000

16.8530
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 10 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 383

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.6012

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6015
Total

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.6012

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6015
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0903

0.0000

0.0903

0.0497

0.0000

0.0497

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0194

0.2025

0.1058

1.9000e-
004

0.0102

9.4000e-
003

0.0000

16.7178

5.4100e-
003

0.0000

16.8530
Total

0.0194

0.2025

0.1058

1.9000e-
004

0.0903

0.0102

0.1006

0.0497

9.4000e-
003

0.0591

0.0000

16.7178

5.4100e-
003

0.0000

16.8530
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 11 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 384

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.6012

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6015
Total

2.8000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

2.0200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.1000e-
004

0.0000

7.2000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

1.9000e-
004

0.0000

0.6012

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.6015
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0655

0.0000

0.0655

0.0337

0.0000

0.0337

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0229

0.2474

0.1586

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0107

0.0000

26.0537

8.4300e-
003

0.0000

26.2644
Total

0.0229

0.2474

0.1586

3.0000e-
004

0.0655

0.0116

0.0771

0.0337

0.0107

0.0443

0.0000

26.0537

8.4300e-
003

0.0000

26.2644
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 12 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 385

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Total

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Fugitive Dust

0.0655

0.0000

0.0655

0.0337

0.0000

0.0337

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0229

0.2474

0.1586

3.0000e-
004

0.0116

0.0107

0.0000

26.0537

8.4300e-
003

0.0000

26.2643
Total

0.0229

0.2474

0.1586

3.0000e-
004

0.0655

0.0116

0.0771

0.0337

0.0107

0.0443

0.0000

26.0537

8.4300e-
003

0.0000

26.2643
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 13 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 386

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Total

4.6000e-
004

3.2000e-
004

3.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

1.0020

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

1.0026
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0760

0.6973

0.6630

1.0800e-
003

0.0383

0.0361

0.0000

92.6549

0.0224

0.0000

93.2138
Total

0.0760

0.6973

0.6630

1.0800e-
003

0.0383

0.0361

0.0000

92.6549

0.0224

0.0000

93.2138
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 14 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 387

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

3.0500e-
003

0.1003

0.0250

2.6000e-
004

6.3000e-
003

2.2000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

1.8200e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.0300e-
003

0.0000

24.8970

1.2200e-
003

0.0000

24.9276
Worker

7.6100e-
003

5.2500e-
003

0.0556

1.8000e-
004

0.0196

1.3000e-
004

0.0197

5.2100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

5.3300e-
003

0.0000

16.5662

3.7000e-
004

0.0000

16.5754
Total

0.0107

0.1055

0.0807

4.4000e-
004

0.0259

3.5000e-
004

0.0262

7.0300e-
003

3.3000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

0.0000

41.4632

1.5900e-
003

0.0000

41.5031
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0760

0.6973

0.6630

1.0800e-
003

0.0383

0.0361

0.0000

92.6548

0.0224

0.0000

93.2136
Total

0.0760

0.6973

0.6630

1.0800e-
003

0.0383

0.0361

0.0000

92.6548

0.0224

0.0000

93.2136
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 15 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 388

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

3.0500e-
003

0.1003

0.0250

2.6000e-
004

6.3000e-
003

2.2000e-
004

6.5100e-
003

1.8200e-
003

2.1000e-
004

2.0300e-
003

0.0000

24.8970

1.2200e-
003

0.0000

24.9276
Worker

7.6100e-
003

5.2500e-
003

0.0556

1.8000e-
004

0.0196

1.3000e-
004

0.0197

5.2100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

5.3300e-
003

0.0000

16.5662

3.7000e-
004

0.0000

16.5754
Total

0.0107

0.1055

0.0807

4.4000e-
004

0.0259

3.5000e-
004

0.0262

7.0300e-
003

3.3000e-
004

7.3600e-
003

0.0000

41.4632

1.5900e-
003

0.0000

41.5031
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1280

1.1712

1.2273

2.0200e-
003

0.0607

0.0571

0.0000
173.7939
173.7939

0.0416

0.0000
174.8348
Total

0.1280

1.1712

1.2273

2.0200e-
003

0.0607

0.0571

0.0000
173.7939
173.7939

0.0416

0.0000
174.8348
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 16 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 389

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

5.3300e-
003

0.1781

0.0441

4.8000e-
004

0.0118

3.5000e-
004

0.0122

3.4100e-
003

3.4000e-
004

3.7500e-
003

0.0000

46.2242

2.1900e-
003

0.0000

46.2790
Worker

0.0133

8.8300e-
003

0.0959

3.3000e-
004

0.0367

2.3000e-
004

0.0370

9.7700e-
003

2.2000e-
004

9.9900e-
003

0.0000

29.9228

6.2000e-
004

0.0000

29.9384
Total

0.0186

0.1869

0.1400

8.1000e-
004

0.0485

5.8000e-
004

0.0491

0.0132

5.6000e-
004

0.0137

0.0000

76.1470

2.8100e-
003

0.0000

76.2174
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.1280

1.1712

1.2273

2.0200e-
003

0.0607

0.0571

0.0000
173.7937
173.7937

0.0416

0.0000
174.8346
Total

0.1280

1.1712

1.2273

2.0200e-
003

0.0607

0.0571

0.0000
173.7937
173.7937

0.0416

0.0000
174.8346
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 17 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 390

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

5.3300e-
003

0.1781

0.0441

4.8000e-
004

0.0118

3.5000e-
004

0.0122

3.4100e-
003

3.4000e-
004

3.7500e-
003

0.0000

46.2242

2.1900e-
003

0.0000

46.2790
Worker

0.0133

8.8300e-
003

0.0959

3.3000e-
004

0.0367

2.3000e-
004

0.0370

9.7700e-
003

2.2000e-
004

9.9900e-
003

0.0000

29.9228

6.2000e-
004

0.0000

29.9384
Total

0.0186

0.1869

0.1400

8.1000e-
004

0.0485

5.8000e-
004

0.0491

0.0132

5.6000e-
004

0.0137

0.0000

76.1470

2.8100e-
003

0.0000

76.2174
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.5460

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0118

0.0810

0.1043

1.7000e-
004

4.7000e-
003

0.0000

14.6812

9.6000e-
004

0.0000

14.7051
Total

0.5577

0.0810

0.1043

1.7000e-
004

4.7000e-
003

0.0000

14.6812

9.6000e-
004

0.0000

14.7051
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 18 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 391

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.9700e-
003

1.3100e-
003

0.0142

5.0000e-
005

5.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

1.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000

4.4402

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.4425
Total

1.9700e-
003

1.3100e-
003

0.0142

5.0000e-
005

5.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

1.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000

4.4402

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.4425
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Archit. Coating

0.5460

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.0118

0.0810

0.1043

1.7000e-
004

4.7000e-
003

0.0000

14.6812

9.6000e-
004

0.0000

14.7051
Total

0.5577

0.0810

0.1043

1.7000e-
004

4.7000e-
003

0.0000

14.6812

9.6000e-
004

0.0000

14.7051
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 19 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 392

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

1.9700e-
003

1.3100e-
003

0.0142

5.0000e-
005

5.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

1.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000

4.4402

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.4425
Total

1.9700e-
003

1.3100e-
003

0.0142

5.0000e-
005

5.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

5.4900e-
003

1.4500e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.4800e-
003

0.0000

4.4402

9.0000e-
005

0.0000

4.4425
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0110

0.1113

0.1458

2.3000e-
004

5.6800e-
003

5.2200e-
003

0.0000

20.0276

6.4800e-
003

0.0000

20.1895
Paving

9.3000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0120

0.1113

0.1458

2.3000e-
004

5.6800e-
003

5.2200e-
003

0.0000

20.0276

6.4800e-
003

0.0000

20.1895
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 20 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 393

3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.3000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

3.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.9653

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9658
Total

4.3000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

3.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.9653

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9658
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Off-Road

0.0110

0.1113

0.1458

2.3000e-
004

5.6800e-
003

5.2200e-
003

0.0000

20.0275

6.4800e-
003

0.0000

20.1895
Paving

9.3000e-
004

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.0120

0.1113

0.1458

2.3000e-
004

5.6800e-
003

5.2200e-
003

0.0000

20.0275

6.4800e-
003

0.0000

20.1895
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 21 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 394

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.7 Paving - 2022
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

4.3000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

3.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.9653

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9658
Total

4.3000e-
004

2.8000e-
004

3.0900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1900e-
003

3.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.2000e-
004

0.0000

0.9653

2.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.9658
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 22 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 395
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
tons/yr
MT/yr
Mitigated

0.0380

0.1974

0.4568

2.1300e-
003

0.2319

1.4000e-
003

0.2333

0.0622

1.3000e-
003

0.0635

0.0000
196.9655
196.9655

6.0100e-
003

0.0000
197.1157
Unmitigated

0.0380

0.1974

0.4568

2.1300e-
003

0.2319

1.4000e-
003

0.2333

0.0622

1.3000e-
003

0.0635

0.0000
196.9655
196.9655

6.0100e-
003

0.0000
197.1157

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
General Office Building

27.17 6.86

2.93 49,729
49,729
Parking Lot

0.00 0.00

9.50 7.30

7.30 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 Parking Lot

9.50 7.30

7.30 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30

7.30 59.00

0.00 41.00
92 5
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 23 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 396

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

0.0000

99.2545

4.5500e-
003

8.7000e-
004

99.6269
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000

99.2545

4.5500e-
003

8.7000e-
004

99.6269
NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.1500e-
003

0.0104

8.7400e-
003

6.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

11.4006
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.1500e-
003

0.0104

8.7400e-
003

6.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

11.4006

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
General Office Building

0.585795

0.036515

0.193581

0.106455

0.012789

0.005274

0.019465

0.028415

0.002699

0.001789

0.005626

0.000921

0.000676
Parking Lot

0.585795

0.036515

0.193581

0.106455

0.012789

0.005274

0.019465

0.028415

0.002699

0.001789

0.005626

0.000921

0.000676
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.585795

0.036515

0.193581

0.106455

0.012789

0.005274

0.019465

0.028415

0.002699

0.001789

0.005626

0.000921

0.000676
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 24 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 397

2.9000e-
004

2.6400e-
003

2.2200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.8728

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.8899
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
158543

8.5000e-
004

7.7700e-
003

6.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000

8.4605

1.6000e-
004

8.5108
Total

1.1400e-
003

0.0104

8.7500e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.9000e-
004

2.6400e-
003

2.2200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
004

0.0000

2.8728

6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

2.8899
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
158543

8.5000e-
004

7.7700e-
003

6.5300e-
003

5.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000

8.4605

1.6000e-
004

8.5108
Total

1.1400e-
003

0.0104

8.7500e-
003

7.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

0.0000

11.3333

2.2000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

11.4006
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 25 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 398

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
34756.8

7.2155

3.3000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.2426
Parking Lot
11060

2.2961

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.3047
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
432287

89.7429

4.1200e-
003

7.8000e-
004

90.0796
Total

99.2545

4.5600e-
003

8.6000e-
004

99.6269
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kWh/yr
MT/yr
General Office
Building
34756.8

7.2155

3.3000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

7.2426
Parking Lot
11060

2.2961

1.1000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

2.3047
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
432287

89.7429

4.1200e-
003

7.8000e-
004

90.0796
Total

99.2545

4.5600e-
003

8.6000e-
004

99.6269
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 26 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 399

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

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

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Unmitigated

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 27 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 400

0.0616

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4584

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.6000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Total

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

0.0616

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4584

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

1.6000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Total

0.5201

2.0000e-
005

1.7900e-
003

0.0000

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.5000e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000

3.7300e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 28 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 401

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
MT/yr
Mitigated

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Unmitigated

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986

7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 29 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 402

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.495877 /

0.303925

0.9352

0.0162

3.9000e-
004

1.4558
Parking Lot
0 / 0

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

26.3764 /
0 37.9972

0.8608

0.0206

65.6429
Total

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
Mgal
MT/yr
General Office
Building

0.495877 /

0.303925

0.9352

0.0162

3.9000e-
004

1.4558
Parking Lot
0 / 0

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

26.3764 /
0 37.9972

0.8608

0.0206

65.6429
Total

38.9324

0.8770

0.0209

67.0986
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 30 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 403

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Unmitigated

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 31 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 404

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

2.59 0.5258

0.0311

0.0000

1.3025
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
107.22

21.7647

1.2863

0.0000

53.9211
Total

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
tons
MT/yr
General Office
Building

2.59 0.5258

0.0311

0.0000

1.3025
Parking Lot
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
107.22

21.7647

1.2863

0.0000

53.9211
Total

22.2904

1.3173

0.0000

55.2236
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/25/2021 2:23 PM

Page 32 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 405

11.0 Vegetation

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

Page 33 of 33 ends

Point Eden Industrial Development - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual 406

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
The revised

Initial Study

Appendix
B
, above, does not constitute new information for purposes of

CEQA

because

Table 5 on

Page 28 ends

the estimated construction emissions

of the project as determined by CalEEMod

using the revised project design
. Therefore, the results of

CalEEmod, as reported

in revised Initial Study Appendix
B
, are presented accurately in the Draft EIR

via the Initial Study, which is Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

The commenter’s statement that the CalEEMod analysis failed to account for possible cold storage is

not applicable to the project. The project is a warehouse for UHAUL storage pods and a regional

office and would not include cold storage. Therefore,

there

would be

no emissions associated with

cold storage.

The commenter’s statement that the CalEEMod analysis used unsubstantiated reductions to

pollutants associated with energy intensity is inaccurate. CalEEMod defaults for energy intensity

were reduced to account for Pacific Gas & Electric’s Renewables Portfolio Standard.

The Renewables

Portfolio Standard mandates that Pacific Gas & Electric increase energy production from renewable

sources, which ultimately reduces pollutant emissions. Accordingly, energy intensity was modified in

CalEEMod to account for the reduced pollutant emissions. Page 3 of Initial Study Appendix B

documents and explains the adjustments to energy intensity factors.

The commenter’s statement that the CalEEMod analysis failed to model material import

is accurate.

As stated on

Page 2 ends

cubic yards of material would be

imported to the site

during project construction.

A standard semi-transfer trailer is capable of

carrying

approximately 100 cubic yards of material. Therefore, approximately 122 trips would be necessary to deliver the required import material to the project site. 4 As shown in Table 5 on

Page

28 of the Initial Study, project construction would reach approximately 75 percent of the daily

emission level considered significant by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which are the

thresholds of significance used in the Draft EIR. The addition of 122 trips would not result in an

increase of 25 percent of total daily emissions during project construction, especially considering

that

not all 122 trips would occur in a single day. The trips to deliver import fill would occur over

days to weeks, meaning only several truck trips would occur daily. Accordingly, the inclusion of truck

trips to deliver import fill material from the CalEEMod estimate would result in no new impacts or

more severe impacts than identified in the Initial Study and Draft EIR because thresholds of

significance would not be exceeded.

The commenter’s statement that the CalEEMod analysis or Draft EIR fails to substantiate demolition

inputs is not accurate. Page 3 of Appendix
B
to the Initial Study states that demolition inputs in

CalEEmod were based on square footage of the existing building on-site, as measured from aerial

photography.

Because inputs to CalEEMod reflect site-specific and project-specific information provided by the

applicant, and documented in Appendix
B
, the air quality analysis is

accurate estimate of

emissions for the proposed project. The potential air quality impacts of the project, as described on

pages 23 through 29 of the Initial Study,

are based on the CalEEMod outputs, among other things,

and are therefore accurate determinations with regard to the potential air quality impacts of the

project. As described in pages 23 through 29 of the Initial Study, potential air quality impacts of the

project would be less than significant without mitigation. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required

in response to this comment.

4 12,200 cubic yards/100 c
ubic yards per trip = 122 total trips

407

Final Environmental Impact Report

Res
ponse to Comments Document

Response 5.11

The commenter states

an opinion

that project construction would generate volatile organic compound (VOC) compounds that
would
exceed significance thresholds based on a CalEEMod
analysis included as Exhibit B to the commenter’s letter.

The com
menter has not accounted for project
-
specific inputs in their preparation of a CalEEMod
estimate of air pollutant emissions. For example, the commenter states that their CalEEMod analysis accounts for refrigeration requirements within the proposed industri al building. As described above
in Response 5.10, the proposed industrial building would be used for storage of UHAUL pods and as a regional office. Refrigeration is not proposed. Therefore, the commenter’s CalEEMod analysis overestimates emissions of the
project. Because the commenter
’
s air quality analysis does not
include project
-
specific inputs
,

it is a less accurate estimate of project emissions than what was conducted for the Initial Study and Draft EIR. As described above in Response 5.10, the air qu ality
analysis presented in the Initial Study and Draft EIR is an accurate estimate of project emissions. As described in pages 23 through 29 of the Initial Study, potential air quality impacts of the project would be less than significant without mitigati
on. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are
required in response to this comment.

Response 5.12

The commenter states

an opinion

that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the project and underestimates GHG emissions

of the project. The commenter
asserts
that the project would generate 1,301 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (CO
2 e/year) of GHG emissions, based on a CalEEMod analysis included as Exhibit B to the commenter’s letter.

This comment is simil
ar to comment 5.11. Please see Response 5.11, above. As stated therein, t
he
commenter has not accounted for project
-
specific inputs in their preparation of a CalEEMod
estimate of air pollutant emissions. Because the commenter has not accounted for project -
specific
conditions in their emissions model, potential GHG emissions are also overestimated and not as accurate as the data presented in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, for the reasons described in Response

5.11, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are r
equired in response to this comment.

Response 5.13

The commenter states that the Draft EIR is inadequate, and the City should prepare a revised EIR for recirculation for reasons described earlier in the comment letter.

This comment broadly covers comments

5.1 through 5.12, above. Please see Response 5.1 through

5.13, above. As described therein, revisions to the Draft EIR constituting new information, resulting in new or more severe significant impacts, or resulting in new mitigation measures that the proje ct
applicant chooses not to implement are not required. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the
State CEQA Guidelines
.

Response 5.Exhibit A

The commenter include
s

a letter report written by Dr. Shawn Sma
llwood, reviewing the D
raft
EIR
and providing opinions to the adequacy of the D
raft
EIR.

The letter report generally
contains
comments already addressed above in Responses 5.1 through 5. 7 . Therefore,
r
esponse
s

5.1 through

5. 7

generally address comments or
concerns stated in Exhibit A. However, there are several 408
City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

statements in Exhibit A that are not

directly

addressed in Responses 5.1 through 5.
7 that require
additional response
. These statements are addressed below.

Page 20 ends

an opinion

that the Draft EIR analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources is flawed because it essentially evaluates
of the residual impacts to biological resources
after

mitigation measures
are implemented
.

The Draft EIR evaluates cumulative
impacts to biological resources on pages 4.1
-
23 and 4.1
-

24. As
stated therein, other projects in Hayward would impact biological resources. Not all projects in Hayward would be on property containing salt marsh habitat, for example, and so not all cumulati ve
projects would
result in
impact
s to

the exact same wildlife species as the proposed project. The Draft EIR states that individual projects would undergo environmental review and mitigation measures would be developed to reduce impacts. However, the Draf t EIR does not state that
mitigation for other projects would reduce the cumulative impact to

less than significant

level
.

Page 4 ends

-
24 of the Draft EIR states that mitigation measures for biological resources identified in the Draft EIR would reduce proj
ect
-
level impacts to a less than
significant level.

Impacts of the proposed
project would be reduced such that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact

to biological resources. Acc
ordingly,
revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Page 21 ends

an opinion

that “either the provisions of the SJMSCP must be fully implemented, or the project’s impacts need to be mitigated independent of the

SJMSCP. Either way,
the EIR needs to be revised. Due to inadequate implementation, the SJMSCP is currently unsuitable as a mitigation strategy for this project.”

Exhibit A does not define the acronym “SJMSCP,” but it is assumed to be San Joaquin County Mu lti
-
Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) 5 . The author erroneously recommends
provisions of the SJMSCP be applied to the proposed project. However, the project site is not within the jurisdiction of the SJMSCP. Measures developed for s pecies in San Joaquin County for the
SJMSCP would not apply to species in Hayward, which is in Alameda County. Assuming coverage under such a plan is not applicable. Accordingly, revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Page 21 ends

an opinion

that Draft EIR Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1a is incomplete
because it fails to require live
-
trap and removal of salt marsh harvest mouse from the project site prior to construction.

Salt
-
marsh harvest mouse is a fully pro
tected species under the California Fish and Game Code, therefore trapping and relocation for project related activities is not a legal activity. Further, the USFWS also no longer allows trapping to move SMHM for project activities. Instead, both agencies require the prescribed removal of vegetation and fencing under the supervision of a biological monitor.

Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1a on
P
age 4.1
-
19 of the Draft EIR is consistent with CDFW and
USFWS requirements because the mitigation requires the prescribed removal of vegetation and
fencing under the supervision of a biological monitor. Accordingly, revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Page 21 ends

an opinion that

Draft EIR mitigation measures should require

more than
one biological monitor given the size of the project site.

5 San Joaquin County Multi
-
Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. 2000. Available Online at:
https://ca
-
sjcog2.civicplus.com/173/Plan
-
Docume
nts
. Accessed: June 2021.

409

Final Environmental Impact Report

Res
ponse to Comments Document

The “qualified biological monitor” is described in Mitigation Measure BIO -
1b on page
s

4.1 -
19 and

4.1 -
20 of the Draft EIR. After describing the qualifications of a biologist, the mitigati on measure cites
“monitor(s).” This indicates that more than one biologist may be on -
site at any given time. In
addition, the area that would require monitoring is approximately 8 acres because no ground disturbance requiring monitoring is proposed within
the 32
-
acre preserve area of the project site.

An area of 8 acres is easily monitored by a single biologist when working with a small crew.

Accordingly, revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Page 21 ends

a
n opinion that

the preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl are not a substitute for detection surveys, and negative findings of preconstruction surveys cannot be interpreted as evidence of absence, as characterized in the Draft EIR mitigation measure.

evidence of burrowing use of the project

site

has been detected during the multiple surveys
conducted over the years. Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1d on
P
age 4.1
-
20 of the DEIR requires surveys
for burrowing owl as prescribed by the 2012 CDFW Staff Report for B urrowing Owl Mitigation. This
report prescribes how, when, and how many surveys are required to mitigate impacts to burrowing owl to less than significant levels. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO -
1d would reduce potential
impacts to burrowing owl to less
than significant

levels
. Revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary
in response to this comment.

Page 22 ends

an opinion

that preconstruction nesting bird surveys are incapable of detecting the majority of bird nests that would occur on th e site, and that mitigation needs to
include detection surveys to inform preconstruction surveys.

Detection surveys in advance of preconstruction surveys is inconsistent with the CDFW methods prescribed as standard nesting bird survey requirements. Mitigat ion Measure BIO
-
1e on pages 4.1
-
20 and 4.1
-
21 of the Draft EIR require preconstruction nesting surveys pursuant to CDFW methods.

T
he Draft EIR mitigation is implementing the best available science as dictated by CDFW to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Ther
efore, revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Page 22 ends

an opinion

that Draft EIR Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1f inappropriately
defers formulation of the mitigation plan until some unreported date in the future, but most certainly at a date that
the commenter asserts
precludes meaningful public participation and
review.

If t
he survey required by Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1f on page 4.1
-
21 of the Draft EIR detects
maternity roosting bats, they
would
be avoided, as these types of roosts are protected under CEQA, as are any roosting special
-
status bats. Further, any plan to relocat
e bats
would
need to be reviewed
by CDFW as the agency with authority to authorize or deny activities associated with species protected under the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW would
have to approve of the plan prior
to implementation. In addition, sh
ould no bats be located, an eviction plan would not be necessary.

I
mpacts to roosting bats would be mitigated to less than significant levels by consulting with CDFW to minimize project
-
related effects to roosting bats to less than significant levels throu
gh
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1f.

Therefore, revisions to the Draft EIR are not
necessary in response to this comment.

Page 21 ends

This comment is similar to
C
omment 5
.7. Please see Response 5.7, above. As described therein, vehicle trips generate
d

by the proposed project would not substantially increase traffic volumes in the area given
that
the project site is adjacent to State Route 92. The proposed project would not

410
City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

result in potentially significant impacts on wildlife from vehicle collisions. Accordingly, mitigation would not be required. Therefore, revisions to the Draft EIR are not necessary in response to this comment.

Response 5.Exhibit B

The commenter includes
a letter report written by SWAPE, reviewing the Draft EIR and providing opinions
as
to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The letter report generally contains
comments already
addressed above, in
r
esponses 5.8 through 5.13. Therefore,
r
esponse
s

5.8 through 5.1
3 generally
address comments or concerns stated in Exhibit B. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to Exhibit B.
411

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to C
o
mment
s Document

4 Revisions to the Draft EIR

This section presents
specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR th
at have been made to clarify
information presented in the Draft EIR.

The changes in this section are in addition to the changes

and revisions to the Draft EIR

that have been made
in response to the comments received on the
Draft EIR, as presented
above in
Section
3 ,
Comments and Responses
.

However, the revisions
presented above in Section
3, are also shown below. These
revisions
are not considered significant
new information that would trigger Draft EIR recirculation pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines

Se
ction 15088.5. For example, they do not disclose a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact, or a new feasible mitigation measure or alternative not proposed for adoption. Rather, the revisions correct or clarify information presen ted.

Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with
underlined

text. Text deleted from the Draft
EIR is shown in
strike
through
. Page numbers correspo
nd to the page numbers of the Draft EIR.

Page
s ES
-
8 and ES
-
9 ,
Executive Summary
, of the Draft EIR
are

revised to include the following
changes:

Table ES
-
1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

Biological Resources

Impact BIO
-

1. The proposed project
would have a substantial adverse
effect on
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status,
such as salt marsh harvest mouse,
burrowing owl and other birds, and
bats. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation
incorporated.

BIO
-
1e Nesting Bird Avoidance and Pre
-
Constru
ction
Surveys.

Project activities, such as vegetation removal,
grading, or initial ground
-
disturbance, shall be conducted
between September 1 and January 31 to the greatest
extent feasible. If project activities must be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to

August 31), a
pre
-
construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to
vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance.

Additional nesting surveys shall be conducted if project construction activities

cease for more than 14 days during
this period. The survey shall include the project site plus a 200
-
foot buffer around the eastern component of the
project site if feasible, and a 500
-
foot buffer, if feasible,
for California least tern, western snowy plo
ver, and black
skimmer, to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or
indirectly by project activities. A survey of the western component of the project site shall be optional and not required becaus
e no ground disturbance or construction
activities are proposed in the western component of the project site.

If active nests are identified during the nesting bird
survey, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be
established within which no work activity
will be allowed
which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer
would be established by the qualified biologist on a case -
Less than
significant.

412
City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

by
-
case basis based on the species and site conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for
passerine bird s
pecies,
and

250 feet for raptor species
.
,

The buffer

or 600 feet

for California least tern, western
snowy plover, and black skimmer

shall be at least 600 feet
or otherwise determined by CDFW and USFWS
. Larger
buffers may be required depending upon the stat
us of the
nest and the construction activities occurring in the
vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall be delineated by orange construction fencing that defines the buffer where it
intersects the project site.

If a California least tern, western snowy plover,

or black
skimmer nest is found within 500 feet of the project site, USFWS and CDFW will be immediately notified. USFWS
and CDFW shall be consulted on appropriate avoidance
and minimization methods, which would likely include
work restrictions within 500 f
eet of the nest, biological
monitoring for activity within the nest’ line
-
of
-
sight, etc.

The buffer area(s) shall be closed to all construction
personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and the nest is inactive. The qualified biologist shall con firm
that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have
fledged the nest prior to removal of the buffer.

Page
s ES
-
13 through ES
-
16 ,
Executive Summary
, of the Draft EIR
are

revised to include the following
changes:

Table ES
-
2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

Biological Resources

Impact HAZ
-

2. The
project would
involve development on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5,
and due to the potential to encounter
residual soil and groundwater
contamination on the eastern
compon
ent of the project site,
impacts would be potentially
significant but mitigable.

HAZ
-
2a

Implementation of the RMP.

The project shall
implement the appropriate handling procedures and
worker health and safety measures during excavating or
dewatering activit
ies, as well as the use of an engineered
vapor barrier as described in the site
-
specific RMP
developed for the project in 2014. The RMP is an
appendix to the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is included as Appendix E to the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to this EIR. Measures included in the RMP to control potential hazardous contamination and exposure
include, but are not limited to the following:



Less than
significant.

413

Final Environmental Impact Report

Res
ponse to Comments Document

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

Additional dust control measures shall be
implemented by the selected contractor, as
necessary, especially if windy conditions persist
during site gr
ading and excavation. These
measures may include moisture, conditioning
the soil, using dust suppressants, or covering the
exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted
plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil.



To prevent or minimize construction equip
ment
from tracking polluted spoils off the site onto
roadways, construction equipment that contacts
soils deeper than 5
-
feet below ground surface
shall be decontaminated prior to leaving the
site. Decontamination methods shall include
brushing and/or vacuu
ming to remove loose dirt
on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event
that these dry decontamination methods are
inadequate, methods such as steam cleaning,
high pressure washing, and cleaning solutions
shall be used, as necessary, to thoroughly
remove a
ccumulated dirt and other materials.

Decontamination activities shall be performed
in an on
-
site decontamination facility
established by the contractor.



All project construction workers performing
construction activities at depths below 5
-
feet
below ground

surface in the restricted areas
shall adhere to decontamination procedures
when exiting the area. Decontamination
measures shall include: (a) vacuuming the
surface of coveralls, head covers, and footwear
to remove accumulated soil particles and
changing i
nto other clean clothes if practical; (b)
vacuuming or washing small tools, hand tools,
or personal equipment to remove accumulated
soil particles; and, (c) placing work clothes and
personal equipment in sealed plastic bags or
other suitable containers for

transportation or
on
-
site storage.



In the event that disturbed soil appears to
contain contaminants of potential concern
(COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/or
discoloration, work should halt in that area and
an environmental professional (EP), such as
a
geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or
environmental health specialist with expertise in
these matters, shall be called to the site to
oversee the work and determine safe
construction and soil handling procedures.

Additionally, if contaminated soi
l is
encountered, the project applicant shall
coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda
County Water District to determine adequate
and proper remediation and handling actions.



The EP shall be present on
-
site during
414
City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

excavations greater than 5
-
feet below ground
surface in the restricted areas to observe field
conditions and measure hydrocarbon vapors
using a hand held photoionization detector
(PID). If PID readings are measured in

a specific
area showing concentrations in excess of
construction worker screening levels published
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), construction activities in that area
shall halt until appropriate risk mitigation
measures are implemen
ted. If necessary,
HAZWOPER trained personnel shall be called to
the site to complete the construction activities
in that area.



Soil excavated from deeper than 5
-
feet below
ground surface in the restricted area shall only
be reused on
-
site as backfill afte
r sampling and
analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to
remain on site. Commercial ESLs
or
concentration limits established in the
San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board document titled
Characterization and
Reuse of Petroleum Hydrocar
bon Impacted Soil
and Inert Waste
(2006), whichever is lowest

shall be used as the threshold to determine if
soils may remain on site or require off
-
site
disposal. All appropriate regulatory sampling
methods, holding times, and detection limits
shall be fo
llowed.



A health and safety plan shall be developed and
implemented for project construction that
incorporates measures and procedures to
minimize direct contact by construction workers
with site groundwater, particularly in the
restricted areas. The healt
h and safety plan shall
be approved by either the City or the RWQCB,
or both as applicable, prior to excavation
activities.



If groundwater is encountered within the
former remediation area during construction of
the project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP
, an
EP shall be called to the site to determine safe
handling procedures. The groundwater shall be
pumped into appropriate containers and
samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis
of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling
plan and the requirem
ents of the waste disposal
facility to which the material is sent.

The project
applicant shall coordinate with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda
County Water District if possible contaminated
groundwater is encountered
.

If water samp
le
analytical results indicate the water is free of all
detectable concentrations of COPCs, such water
can be re
-
used at the site if deemed appropriate
by Alameda County and the RWQCB. If water
415

Final Environmental Impact Report

Res
ponse to Comments Document

Impact

Mitigation Measure (s)

Residual Impact

sample analytical results indicate the water
contains concentr
ations of COPCs above
appropriate RWQCB screening levels, such
water shall not be re
-
used at the site. The
contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the
groundwater on
-
site to render it free of
detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by
activated ca
rbon filtration); or, (b) transport the
groundwater to a local treatment or disposal
facility for appropriate handling.

Section 4.1,
Biological Resources
, on pages 4.1
-
16 and 4.1
-
17 of the Draft EIR
is

revised to include
the following changes:

Project construction activities on the eastern component of the project site could result in direct mortality and/or harassment of the federal and State endangered S MHM and CDFW
special
-
status SMWS. Additionally, the project would potentially result in impacts to marginal pickleweed habitat for these species. No construction activities would occur within the western component of the project site, where most of the for mer salt ponds and
pickleweed habitat occurs. However, construction of the proposed building and parking lot would occur partially within pickleweed habitat at a former salt pond in the eastern component of the project site. Further, disturbance of the upl and area immediately
adjacent to the salt pond in the eastern component would disturb habitat that could become increasingly important to SMHM and SMWS as escape refugia during flooding and inundation. These impacts to SMHM and SMWS are regarded as potenti ally significant.

Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO
-

1a through BIO
-
1c listed below would be required to
reduce potential impacts to SMHM and SMWS to a less
-
than
-
significant level.

Additionally,
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3, described for Im
pact BIO
-
3 below, would be
required to reduce potential impacts to SMHM and SMWS.

Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1e on pages 4.1
-
20 and 4.1
-
21 of the Draft EIR is revised to include the
following changes:

If active nests are identified during the nesting bird surv ey, an appropriate avoidance buffer
shall be established within which no work activity will be allowed which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer would be established by the qualified biologist on a case -
by
-
case basis based on the species and sit
e conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller
than 50 feet for passerine bird species,
and

250 feet for raptor species
,
.

The buffer

or 600
feet
for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer

shall
be at least 600
feet or otherwi
se determined by CDFW and USFWS
. Larger buffers may be required
depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall be delineated by orange construction fencing that defines the buffer
where it intersects the project site.

Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a on pages 4.3
-
14 and 4.3
-
15 of the Draft EIR
is
revised

as follows.

…
In the event that disturbed soil appears to contain contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/
or discoloration, work should halt in that area and an
environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or environmental health specialist with expertise in these matters, shall be called to the site to 416

Final Environmental Impact Report

Response to Comments D
ocument

City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
oversee the work

and determine safe construction and soil handling procedures.

Additionally, if contaminated soil is encountered, the project applicant shall coordinate with

the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water

District to determine adequate and proper remediation and handling actions… …Soil excavated from deeper than 5-feet below ground surface in the restricted area shall

only be reused on-site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil proves the soil is

acceptable to

remain on site. Commercial ESLs

or concentration limits established in the

San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board document titled

Characterization and

Reuse of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil and Inert Waste

(2006), whichever is lowest,

shall be used as the threshold to determine if soils may remain on site or require off-site

disposal. All appropriate regulatory sampling methods, holding times, and detection limits shall be followed
…
…If groundwater is encountered within the former remediation area during construction of the

project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an EP shall be called to the site to determine safe handling procedures. The groundwater shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples

shall be obtained for chemical analysis of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling plan and the

requirements of the waste disposal facility to which the material is sent.

The project applicant shall

coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District if

possible contaminated groundwater is encountered.

If water sample analytical results indicate the

water is free of all detectable

concentrations of COPCs, such water can be re-used at the site if

deemed appropriate by Alameda

County

and the RWQCB. If water sample analytical results indicate

the water contains concentrations of COPCs above appropriate RWQCB screening levels, such water

shall not be re-used at the site. The contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater on-site to render it free of detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate handling… Appendix
B
of the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to the Draft EIR is revised to remove

all

sheets comprising Appendix
B
and replaced with the CalEEMod datasheets provided
above in

Response 5.10

in Section 3 of this

RTC document.

417
City of Hay
ward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Mitig
ation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1
M
itigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Envir
onmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project identifies the mitigation measures required to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code:
...the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.

Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of making findings or adopting a mitigated negative declaration.

The mitigation monitoring table lists the identified mitigation measures for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The project applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Hayward departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures.

The first column identifies mitigation measures that were identified in the Final EIR, including within the Initial Study that is an appendix to the EIR. The second column, entitled “Action Required,” refers to the monitoring action that must be taken to ensure the mitigation measure’s implementation. The third column, entitled “Monitoring Timing,” refers to when the monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigation action is complete. The fourth column, “Responsible Agency,” refers to the agency responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The “Compliance Verification” column is where the Responsible Agency verifies that the measures have been implemented.

ATTACHMENT IX
City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

2 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

Biological Resources

BIO
-
1 a
:

SWHM and SMWS Habitat Fencing

Prior to ground disturbing activities adjacent to potential SMHM and SMWS habitat, temporary exclusion barriers and/or fencing shall be installed to exclude individuals of these
species from areas of active construction. The design of the exclusion barriers and fencing shall be approved by a qualified biologist and shall be installed in the presence of a qualified biological monitor. The fence will be made of a material that does
not allow SMHM or SMWS to pass through, and the bottom shall be buried to a depth of a minimum of four inches so that these species cannot crawl under the fence. All support for the exclusion fencing shall be placed on the inside of the project footprint.

Additionally, removal of marsh or associated ruderal vegetation shall be completed using only hand tools and in the presence of a biological monitor. The barriers and/or fencing shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.

Grading

permit
application shall identify
location and type of
temporary exclusion
barriers and/or fencing
and shall include note
that the facilities were

approved by a biologist
and
installed

under
supervision of a

qualified biological
monitor
. Verify that a
qua
lified biological
monitor is present when
marsh or associated
ruderal vegetation is
removed, and removal is
with hand tools.

Prior to

construction

and

the periodically
during the
duration
of
construction

activities

City of
Hayward
Planning

Division

(barri
er and
fencing
design) and
City of
Hayward
Public Works
Engineering
Division and
Building
Division (field
verification)

BIO
-
1 b
:

Qualified Biological Monitor

A qualified biological monitor shall be present during wildlife exclusion fence installation and removal, and during all vegetation clearing and initial ground disturbance which take place in marsh habitats of the former salt ponds and the vegetation adjac
ent to marsh habitats. The monitor will have demonstrated experience in biological construction monitoring and knowledge of the biology of the special
-
status species that may be found in the project site, including SMHM and SMWS. The monitor(s) shall have
the authority to halt construction, if necessary, if
noncompliance actions occur. If a federal or State listed species is observed at any time during construction, work shall not be initiated or shall be stopped immediately until the animal leaves the vici
nity of the work area of its own volition. If the animal in question does not leave the work area, work shall not be reinitiated until the qualified biological monitor has contacted the appropriate agency to discuss on how to proceed with work activities.

The biological monitor shall direct the contractor on how to proceed accordingly.

The biological monitor(s) shall be the contact person for any employee or contractor Prior to issuance of
grading permits
a
pplicant shall v
erify
that

a qualified
biological monitor
will
be

present during
wildlife fence
installation and removal,
and during all
vegetation clearing and
initial ground
disturbance

within salt
ponds and marsh
habitat
. If a special
-
status species is
Prior to

construction

of
the wildlife
exclusion fence
;

weekly site visits
to provide
guidance
and
ensure
compliance with
permit conditions

City of
Hayward
Public Works
Engineering
Division and
Building

Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

who might inadvertently kill or injure a special
-
status species or anyone who finds a
de
ad, injured, or entrapped special
-
status species. Following fence installation,
vegetation removal in potential habitat areas, and initial ground disturbance in potential habitat areas, the biologist shall train an onsite monitor to continue to document co
mpliance. The biologist shall conduct weekly site checks to provide guidance for fence maintenance, provide environmental sensitivity training, and document compliance with permit conditions.

observed at any time,

veri
fy

construction
has

halted
until
documentation from the
appropriate agency is
received
.

Verify
environmental
sensitivity training and
document permit
compliance.

BIO
-
1 c
:

Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training

The biological monitor shall provide an endangered species training program to all
personnel involved in project construction. At a minimum, the employee education program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable about the biology of sensitive species with potential to occur in the project footprint, and about
their legislative protection to explain concerns to contractors and their employees involved with implementation of the project. The program shall include a description of the species and their habitat needs, any reports of occurrences in the are a; an
explanation of the status of these species and their protection under State and federal legislation; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts to these species during construction
.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits,
applicant shall v
eri
fy
that
all personnel
involved in project
construction undergo
endangered species
training.

Prior to

construction
and
on an as
-
needed
basis after
personnel
training

City of
Hayward
Public Works
Engineering
Division and
Building

Division

BIO
-
1 d
:

Burrowing Owl

Pre
-
Construction Surveys and Avoidance

A qualified biologist shall conduct pre
-
construction clearance surveys prior to ground
disturbance activities within suitable
natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout
the eastern component of the project site to confirm the presence/absence of active burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW (2012). Cleara
nce surveys shall be conducted
within 30 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities. If no burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If burrowing owls are detected during the pre
-
construction clearance surveys, the fol
lowing measures shall apply:



Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non
-
breeding season shall be
implemented in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993) minimization mitigation measures.



If avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional mea sures such as
passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with Materials submitted to
the Planning Division
prior to issuance of
grading permits shall
v
erify that
a qualified
biologist
conducts

a pre
-
construction clearance
and if owls are observed
that
avoidance buffers
are implemented, or
passive relocation and
construction buffers are
established
. Verify that
a Burrowing Owl
30 days prior to

construction
and
then as needed
during
construction to

verify avoidance
buffers are
maintained.

City of
Hayward
Planning
Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

4 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

CDFW. In addition, a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan s
hall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).

Exclusion Plan and
Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan is
developed and
im
plemented is owl
avoidance is not
feasible.

BIO
-
1 e
: Nesting Bird Avoidance and
Pre
-
Construction Surveys

Project activities, such as vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground -
disturbance,
shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 to the greatest extent feasible. If project activities must be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to

August 31), a pre
-
construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to vegetation removal or initial ground disturbance. Additional nesting surveys shall be conducted if project construction activities

skimmer,

if feasible,

to identify the location and status of any nests that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by project activities. A survey of the western component of the project site shall be optional and not required because no ground disturbance

or construction activities are proposed in the western component of the project site.

If active nests are identified during the nesting bird survey, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be established within which no work activity will be allowed which w ould
impact these nests. The avoidance buffer would be established by the qualified biologist on a case
-
by
-
case basis based on the species and site conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for passerine bird species

and

250 feet for
ra
ptor species
. The bu
ffer for

California least tern, western snowy plover, and black
skimmer

shall be a
t least 600 feet or otherwise determined by CDFW and USFWS .

Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall b e delineated
by orange construction fencing that defines the buffer where it intersects the project site.

If a California least tern, western snowy plover, or black skimmer nest is found within 500 feet of the project site, USFWS and CDFW will be immediate ly notified. USFWS
and CDFW shall be consulted on appropriate avoidance and minimization methods, which would likely include work restrictions within 500 feet of the nest, biological Verify that if initial
ground disturbing
activ
ities occurs
between February 1

and
August 31, a qualified
biologist
shall

prepare a
pre
-
construction survey
two weeks prior to start
of
construction

and shall
be submitted to the
Planning Division
. If
acti
ve nests are
discovered, verify that
buffers have been
established and work is
avoided in in the buffer
as appropriate.

Verify
that

USFWS and CDFW
are consulted if
California least tern,
western snowy plover,
or black skimmer are
found and that
recommendat
ions of the
agencies are
implemented
.

Once before
construction to
review pre
-
construction
survey; as needed
during
construction to
verify buffers
established and
work is avoiding
buffer zones.

City of
Hayward
Planning
Division

and
Public Works
Engineering
(inspections)

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

5 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

monitoring for activity within the nest’ line
-
of
-
sight, etc. The buffer a
rea(s) shall be
closed to all construction personnel and equipment until juveniles have fledged and the nest is inactive. The qualified biologist shall confirm that breeding/nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the buff er.

BIO
-
1 f
:

Special
-
Status Bat Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys

To avoid impacts to roosting special
-
status bats, focused surveys to determine the
presence/absence of roosting bats shall be conducted prior to the initiation of demolition of buildings and removal of mature trees large enough to contain crevices and hollows that could support bat roosting. If active maternity roosts are identified, a qualified biologist shall establish avoidance buffers applicable to the species, the roost
location and exposure, and the proposed construction activity in the area. If active non
-
maternity day or night roosts are found on the project site, measures shall be implemented to passively relocate bats from the roosts prior to the onset of c
onstruction activities. Such measures may include removal of roosting site during the time of day the roost is unoccupied or the installation of one -
way doors, allowing the
bats to leave the roost but not to re
-
enter. These measures shall be presented in a

Bat
Passive Relocation Plan that shall be submitted to, and approved by, CDFW.

Verify
that
a qualified
biologist has
conducted
focused surveys

and
submitted to Planning
Division
. If
bats or signs
of roosting bats are
observed
, verif
y that
qualified biolog
ist has
prepared
recommendations and
that recommendations
are

included on the
building permit plans
and

implemented.

Once before
construction
before
to review
pre
-
construction
survey
s
; as
needed during
construction to
verify
implementation.

City of
Haywar
d
Planning
Division

(surveys) and
City of
Hayward
Building
Division (field
verification)

BIO
-
1 g
:

Trash Removal

During construction of the project, all food
-
related trash items such as wrappers, cans,
bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in
solid, closed containers (trash cans)
and removed at the end of each workday from the project site to eliminate an attraction to predators of special
-
status species.

Verify that
all food
-
related trash be
disposed of in solid
containers and removed
from
the project site

As needed during
project
construction.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

BIO
-
1 h
:

Public Access Exclusion Fencing

Access by all project construction personnel into the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve shall be prohibited. Upon
completion of the development project a permanent fence shall be installed on the eastern component of the project site to prevent access from the San Francisco Bay Trail relocated segment and the new industrial development into the adjacent salt ponds and

associated marsh habitats to the west. In addition,
signs shall be posted stating that public access into the salt ponds and associated marsh habitat is strictly prohibited owing to the sensitivity of the habitat and to ensure the continued use of this ha
bitat by special
-
status species.

Verify
the construction
of a permanent fence
and signage.

Fence shall
be included on
improvement plans and
reviewed and approved
by Planning Division and
the East Bay Regional
Once after
project
construction is
complete.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

6 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

Park District

BIO
-
3:

Protected Wetlands Mitigation Credits

To compensate for impacts to approximately 0.97 acre of waters of the U.S., the project applicant shall purchase wetland mitigation credits at a minimum of 1:1
mitigation ratio from an approved mitigation bank with a Service Area that covers the project site. The San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank currently has "Tidal Wetland and Other Waters Creation" credits available for purchase. Either the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW may adjust the mitigation ratio and the applicant shall comply, but in no case shall the mitigation ratio be less than 1:1.

Verify
the applicant
purchases wetland
credits at a minimum of
1:1 mitigation
ratio
.

Evidence of such
purchase shall be
submitted to the
Planning Division.

Prior to
issuing a
Certificate of
O
ccupancy
.

City of
Hayward
Planning
Division

Cultural Resources

CUL
-
1 a
:

Building Recordation

Archival documentation of as
-
built and
as
-
found condition shall be prepared for the
Oliver Brothers Salt Company prior to demolition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of Hayward shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed

that follows the general guidelines of
Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
-
level III documentation. The documentation
shall include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. T
he documentation shall be completed
by a qualified professional who meets the standards for history, architectural history, or architecture as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, Part 61). The original

archival
-
quality documentation shall be
offered as donated material to the Hayward Library and/or Hayward Area Historical Society to make it available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation shall be submitted to the City
of Hayward where it shall be available to
local researchers.

Verify
that
the
refer
e
n
c
ed
buildings are
documented prior to
demolition
using general
guidelines o
f

HABS
L
evel
III documentation
.

Verify copy of
documentation is
provided to City
Planning Division
and
offered to
Hayward
Historic Society and
local library
.

Prior to issuing
demolition
permits
.

City of
Hayward
Planning
Division

CUL
-
1 b
:

Interpretive Display

An
interpretive display shall be developed and installed on site to commemorate the history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. The display may include historic photographs, drawings, and text to convey the history of the site and the significance of salt pr
ocessing in Alameda County. The display shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation at a site to be chosen by the City. The installation shall occur prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Verify
installation of an
interpretat
ive display
that is approved by the
City
.

Applicant shall
include display
information, text, design
Prior to issuing a
Certificate of
Occupancy
.

City of
Hayward
Planning
Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

7 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

and display on building
permits.

CUL
-
2 :

Unanticipated Discovery of
Archaeological Resources

In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground
-
disturbing activities, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qual ifications
Standards for archeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find. I f necessary, as
determined by the archaeologist in consultation with the City, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves

to be eligible
for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by the modified project, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate impacts to archaeological resources.

Verify that
if

archaeological artifacts
are encountered during
project construction, all
work in the vicinity of
the find has been halted
until suc
h time as the
find is evaluated
.

As needed during
construction
activities; work
must stop
immediately if
resources are
discovered, and
consultation
initiated as soon
as pra
ctical
.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

(field
compliance)
and City of
Hayward
Planning
Division
(actions in the
event of
encountering
resources)

Geology and Soils

GEO
-
1: Geotechnical Considerations

The project applicant shall implement all
measures and recommendations set forth in
the Geotechnical Engineering Services Report prepared by Professional Services Industries, Inc., an Intertek company, in January 2018 (included as Appendix D and on file with the City of Hayward). This measure shal
l be implemented for development on
the eastern component of the project site. Recommendations include but are not limited to the following topic areas:



Engineered fill material required at this site shall not contain rocks greater than 3 -
inches in diamete
r or greater than 30 percent retained on the ¾
-
inch sieve,
and shall not contain more than 3 percent (by weight) of organic matter or other unsuitable material. The expansion index for the material shall not exceed 50.



Engineered fill shall be compacted to

at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density as determined by the modified Proctor (ASTM D1557). The moisture content of engineered fill shall be maintained at approximately 2 percent above or below the material’s optimum moisture content as determined by the same
index during compaction.



Engineered fill shall be placed in maximum lifts of 8
-
inches of loose material.

Each lift of engineered fill shall be tested by a PSI soils technician, working under Verify
that building
plans

for the eastern
component of the site

incorporate all design
and construction criteria
specif
ied in the
2018
geotechnical report
.

All
recommendations
should be included in
the grading and
improvement plans and
building permit plans, as
appropriate.

Once prior to
approval of
grading permit;
periodically
on
-
site

during grading
and construction
;
once after the
installation of roof
gutters
.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

8 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

the direction of a licensed geotechnical engineer, pr
ior to placement of
subsequent lifts.



Properly compacted engineered fill shall extend horizontally outward beyond the exterior perimeter of the foundations a distance equal to the height of fill or 5 feet, whichever is greater, prior to substantial sloping .



Permanent cut or fill slopes shall not exceed 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V).

Excavations extending below a 1H:1V plane extending down from any adjacent footings shall be shored for safety.



Utilities trenches within the building, pavement, and sidewa lk areas shall be
backfilled with granular engineered fill such as sand, sand and gravel, fragmental rock, or recycled concrete of up to 2 inches maximum size with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve (washed analysis). Granular backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Compaction by jetting or flooding shall not be permitted.



To ensure precipitation is conveyed away from structural foundation, continuous roof gutters shal
l be installed on the proposed industrial building. The roof drains shall be connected to a tight
-
line pipe leading to storm drain facilities. Pavement
surfaces and open space areas shall be sloped such that surface water runoff is collected and routed to
suitable discharge points. Ground surfaces adjacent the building shall be sloped to facilitate positive drainage away from the building.

Landscaped or planted areas shall not be placed within 10 feet of the footings of the proposed building.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZ
-
1 : Project
Demolition Activities

In conformance with State and local laws, a visual inspection/pre -
demolition survey,
and possible sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on -
site building(s)
to determine the presence of
asbestos
-
containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead
-
based
paint (LBP). Documentation of the survey shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of demolition activities.

During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -
based paint s
hall be
removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or coatings shall be d
isposed of
at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead being disposed.

All potentially friable asbestos containing materials (ACMs) shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines Verify that inspection or
survey for ACMs and
LBP is performed. Verify
that if present, ACMs
and LBP is removed and
disposed of pursuant to
specified regulatory
requirements.

Applicant is responsible
for providing
confirmation of
inspection prior to
Prior to
the
demolition of
onsite buildings
.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

and/or
Hayward Fire
Department
–

Hazardous
Materials
Division

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

9 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

pr
ior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure.

A registered asbestos
abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs identified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above in this mitigation measure. Materials containing more than one
-
percent asbestos are
also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one -
percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications.

Based on Cal/OSHA rules and regulatio
ns, the following conditions shall be
implemented to limit impacts to construction workers:



Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, shall be completed to identify and quantify building materials co
ntaining lead
-
based paint.



During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -
based paint
shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.



Any debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at
landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.

issua
nce of demolition
permit.

HAZ
-
2 a: Implementation of the RMP

The project shall implement the
appropriate handling procedures and worker health
and safety measures during excavating or dewatering activities, as well as the use of an engineered vapor barrier as described in the site
-
specific RMP developed for the
project in 2014. The RMP is an appen
dix to the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is
included as Appendix D to this EIR. Measures included in the RMP to control potential hazardous contamination and exposure include, but are not limited to the following:



Construction contractors shall
implement dust control mitigation measures
during construction activities at the project site to minimize the generation of dust. Examples of dust control measures that shall be implemented include limiting construction vehicles speeds to 5 miles per hour when on
-
site; routinely
applying water to exposed soils while performing excavation activities; and, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheets at the end of each workday. Additional dust control measures shall be implemented by the selected contractor, as
necessary, especially if windy conditions persist during site grading and excavation. These measures may include moisture, conditioning the soil, using Verify

all applicable

han
dling procedures
and safety measures as
outlined in the RMP

are
implemented.

During the
duration of
construction
.

City of
Hayward
Building

Division

and/or
Engineering
Division
(inspections)

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

10 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

dust suppressants, or covering the exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted plastic sheeting to prev
ent exposure of the soil.



Decontamination methods shall include brushing and/or vacuuming to remove loose dirt on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event that these dry decontamination methods are inadequate, methods such as steam cleaning, high pressure washing, and cle
aning solutions shall be used, as necessary, to
thoroughly remove accumulated dirt and other materials. Decontamination activities shall be performed in an on
-
site decontamination facility established by
the contractor.



All project construction workers per
forming construction activities at depths
below 5
-
feet below ground surface in the restricted areas shall adhere to decontamination procedures when exiting the area. Decontamination measures shall include: (a) vacuuming the surface of coveralls, head cover s, and footwear
to remove accumulated soil particles and changing into other clean clothes if practical; (b) vacuuming or washing small tools, hand tools, or personal equipment to remove accumulated soil particles; and, (c) placing work clothes and persona
l equipment in sealed plastic bags or other suitable containers for transportation or on
-
site storage.



In the event that disturbed soil appears to contain contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/or discoloration, work should

halt
in that area and an environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or environmental health specialist with expertise in these matters, shall be called to the site to oversee the work and determine safe construct
ion and soil handling procedures.

Additionally, if contaminated soil
is encountered, the project applicant shall coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District to determ
ine adequate and proper remediation and handling actions.



The EP shall be present on
-
site during excavations greater than 5
-
feet below
ground surface in the restricted areas to observe field conditions and measure hydrocarbon vapors using a hand held photoionization detector (PI D). If PID
readings are measured in a specific area showing concentrations in excess of construction worker screening levels published by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), construction activities in that area shall halt until appropriate ri
sk mitigation measures are implemented. If necessary, HAZWOPER trained personnel shall be called to the site to complete the construction activities in that area.

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

11 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments



Soil excavated from deeper than 5
-
feet below ground surface in the restricted
area shall only

be reused on
-
site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil
proves the soil is acceptable to remain on site. Commercial ESLs or concentration
limits established in the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
docume
nt titled
Characterization and Reuse of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil and Inert Waste

(2006), whichever is lowest

shall be used as the threshold to
determine if soils may remain on site or require off
-
site disposal. All appropriate
regulator
y sampling methods, holding times, and detection limits shall be followed.



A health and safety plan shall be developed and implemented for project construction that incorporates measures and procedures to minimize direct contact by construction workers wit
h site groundwater, particularly in the
restricted areas. The health and safety plan shall be approved by either the City or the RWQCB, or both as applicable, prior to excavation activities.



If groundwater is encountered within the former remediation area during
construction of the project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an EP shall be called to the site to determine safe handling procedures. The groundwater shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis of

the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling plan and the requirements of the waste disposal facility to which the material is sent.

The
project applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District if possi
ble contaminated groundwater is
encountered
.

If water sample analytical results indicate the water is free of all detectable concentrations of COPCs, such water can be

re
-
used at the site if
deemed appropriate by Alameda County and the RWQCB. If water sample analytical results indicate the water contains concentrations of COPCs above appropriate RWQCB screening levels, such water shall not be re -
used at the site.

The co
ntractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater on -
site to
render it free of detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate

handling.



The proposed industrial building shall be constructed on top of a minimum of a 5 -
foot bioattenuation zone within the restricted areas. This bioattenuation zone shall consist of a minimum of 5
-
feet of soil above the anticipated shallowest
groundw
ater elevation, and the soil shall not contain total petroleum hydrocarbons greater than 100 parts per million.



An engineered vapor barrier shall be employed to further protect against possible vapor intrusion of COPCs into the proposed industrial building . The
vapor barrier shall be designed to meet the needs of building. Vapor barriers are City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

12 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

generally constructed using membranes constructed with high -
density
polyethylene (HDPE) or other polyolefin
-
based resins. The vapor barrier shall be
resistant to VOCs.

The vapor barrier shall meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for a vapor barrier and have a permeance rating of 0.1 perms or less. The thickness and strength of the vapor barrier shall be based on the needs for the building,

but the architect and contractor shall use a
material strong enough to easily withstand the building construction and other building considerations. The selected vapor barrier shall be approved by the RWQCB prior to installation.

HAZ
-
2b
:

Bioretention Design Coordination

The project
applicant shall consult with the City on location and/or design of the on -
site bioretention basins to ensure protection of the groundwater basin, which may include, but is not limited to, locating the basins outside of the restricted areas or use of a line
r in the detention basin. The final design and location of the on -
site
bioretention basins shall demonstrate that groundwater would be protected from contamination.

B
ioretention design and
location

design shall be
included on the
improvement plans and
othe
r plans as
necessary
.

Verify that
design and location
protects groundwater.

Prior to
construction
.

City of
Hayward
Public Works
–

Engineering

HAZ
-
2c
:

Displacement Pier Design and Construction

The project applicant shall retain a
geotechnical engineer to design the displacement
piers for support of the building foundation. The displacement piers shall be designed in a way to prevent creating a preferential pathway between shallow groundwater at approximately 5 feet below ground sur
face and deeper groundwater. The displace
pier design developed by the geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into project plans prior to commencement of construction. This mitigation measure shall apply to all displacement piers within the restricted

areas or the larger area where benzene
concentrations exceed ESLs, as shown in Figure 4.3
-
2 of the EIR. Additionally, air
-
jetting shall not be used to create the holes for the displacement piers within the restricted areas to avoid bringing subsurface soi
ls to the ground surface.

Verify that displacement
pier design is approved
by a geotechnical
engineer and
incorporated into
project plans
.

Verify
that air jetting is not
used within the
restricted areas.

Details
shall be included on
building permit plans
a
nd reviewed and
approved by Building
and/or Engineering staff
as appropriate.

Prior to
construction

and
during
construction, as
needed, to
confirm air jetting
is avoided in
restricted areas.

City of
Hayward
Public Works
–

Engineering/B
uilding
Division

Transportation

City of Hayward

4150 Point Eden Way

Industrial
Development
Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

13 Mitigation Measure/

Condition of Approval

Monitoring and
Reporting Actions

Monitoring
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Compliance Verification

Initial

Date

Comments

TR
-
1:

Travel Demand Management

The project applicant shall implement at least one of the measures described below:



Voluntary Employer Commute Program:

The project applicant shall encourage
alternative modes of transportation through a program that may include elements such as: a carpool or vanpool program, subsidized or discounted transit passes, bike amenities, commute trip
-reduction marketing, and pre
ferential
parking permit program.



Employer Carpool Program:

The project applicant shall encourage carpooling by
providing ride matching assistance to employees, providing priority parking for carshare vehicles, and providing incentives for carpooling.

The applicant shall provide to the City documentation that at lease one of the above measures is implemented. Documentation shall be provided annually.

Verify that
either a
voluntary employee
commute program or an
employer carpool
program

is
implemented.

Applicant
is responsible to
reporting to City.

Once annually

commencing with
building
occupancy
.

City of
Hayward
Public Works
–

Engineering
and
Transportatio
n Division.

Tribal Cultural Resources

TCR
-
1 : Unanticipated
Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources

In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archae
ologist has evaluated the nature
and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant unde
r CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall

outline the appropriate
treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.

Verify that in the event
that cultural artifacts of
Native American origin
are encountered during
project co
nstruction, all
work in the vicinity of
the find has been halted
until such

time as the
find is evaluated
.

As needed during
construction
activities; work
must stop
immediately if
resources are
discovered, and
consultation

initiated as soon
as practical
.

Ci
ty of
Hayward
Building

Division

(field
compliance)
and City of
Hayward
Planning
Division
(actions in the
event of
encountering
resources)

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconference and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Order No. 29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The Planning Commission, City Staff, and public members participated via the Zoom Webinar platform.

MEETING
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Roche.

ROLL CALL

Present:

Absent:

COMMISSIONERS:

CHAIRPERSON:

COMMISSIONER:

Ali-Sullivan, Goldstein, Mendall, Oquenda, Stevens
Roche
Bonilla
Staff Members Present: Billoups, Brick, Buizer, Chan, Lochirco, Nguyen, Patenaude, Schmidt PUBLIC COMMENT:

There were none.

PUBLIC HEARING:

For agenda items Nos. 1 and 2, the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed. The appeal period is 10 days from the date of the decision. If appealed, a public hearing will be scheduled before the City Council for final decision.

I. Proposed Addition of a Drive-Thru for a Proposed Starbucks Coffee Shop to a Previously Approve Mission Village Retail Structure at 411 Industrial Parkway, APN 078G-2651-011-02, Requiring Approval of Conditional Use Permit with Site Plan Review Application No. 202101267: Doug Rich, Valley Oak Partners LLC (Applicant)/Edwin Sommer LLC ETAL (Owner)
Consulting Planner Patenaude provided a synopsis of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation.

Mr. Doug Rich, applicant, spoke about the proposed project and the background of the change to the project with the addition of the proposed drive thru. 1 ATTACHMENT X
aofHgyk, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
v r a; '
1,4„9 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
gLIFOk\ P
Commissioner Mendall disclosed that he lived about a quarter of a mile from the project site and that there is not a conflict. Mr. Mendall mentioned that he has participated in project discussions over the years as a City Council Member and a member of the Council Economic Development Committee ( CEDC) and that he has met with community members and the applicant many times.

Discussion ensued between staff, Planning Commission and applicant regarding the following: which landscape plan renderings were correct and what authority does the City have to enforce the landscaping plans moving forward; what metrics does Starbucks use when planning their stores and car queuing plans; the drive-thru's build out impact to the main project timeline; what are the plans to maintain trash commitment for the community and locally; and please post applicant's contact information for trash and other issues.

Consulting Planner Patenaude confirmed that the landscape plan presented this evening are the correct renderings.

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said that landscape maintenance is part of the conditions of approval ( COA); and that the City's Landscape Architect Koo ensures that there are sufficient COA to cover the landscape and maintenance into perpetuity for the life of the project. Ms. Schmidt shared that staff receives conceptual plans as part of the plans submittal and spoke about the process.

Mr. Rich explained the landscape plan process they will go through and that these plans will become part of the documented plans; spoke about the landscaping plans; provided Starbucks point of view of how to set up a drive-thru to make sure there is sufficient queuing within the space and cars will not impact the public thoroughfare. He spoke about a contingency plan for the cars; through their property management company they are committed to maintaining the trash. He said they are the owners; will remain the owners and they plan to be here in Hayward. Mr. Rich said the drive-thru will not impact the main project and elaborated on what is moving forward with the main project. Mr. Rich said that they can post contact information for the public in case there are any issues with the project.

Mr. Eric Tse, of Hextrans, spoke about the traffic study conducted in Pleasanton for Starbucks and how they were not able to conduct a Hayward study because of COVID limitations. Mr. Tse said they compared the Hayward site with the Pleasanton Starbucks as the settings are similar and was able to be used in the estimation for the car queuing. Mr.

Tse noted that they also consulted with City Transportation Engineer Chang.

Chair Roche opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Glen Kirby, spoke against the project, wants to see another alternative to allow for modest tenant space and local serving businesses. He spoke about the zoning, the lack of inclusionary housing, and the ratio between residential and retail.

Ms. Ro Aguilar, Hayward resident, spoke about the email that she submitted to the Commission; spoke against the project. She spoke about the need for housing and asked the Commission to oppose the drive-thru and suggested building low-income housing on top of the retail even if her suggested changes delays the project. She urged the Commission to not give in to the developer.

Ms. Mimi Bauer, Hayward resident, spoke in favor of the overall project and the added Starbucks drive thru. She said that this is the first project to revitalize Hayward and the Fairway Park community. Ms. Bauer spoke about the many efforts by the Fairway Park Association to bring affordable housing to the community including the efforts for seven years on this project and mentioned the many challenges the developer has had with this site. She asked the Commission to approve this project to keep the project moving forward.

Chair Roche closed the public hearing at 7.49 p.m.

Commissioner Goldstein said that he is familiar with the Fairway Park neighborhood and location and that he moved to Twin Bridges in 2005; spoke about the issues and concerns since the Holiday Bowl closed; this project is a major improvement and will be transformative for this neighborhood; appreciates the time and effort that the applicant has put into this project and that they are committed to seeing this through. He asked if inclusionary housing can be added to the retail component.

Consulting Planner Patenaude said he does not know the feasibility of adding housing and this would be a whole new study to add housing on top of the retail component.

Mr. Rich said they have included inclusionary housing in many of their project, but it would not be feasible at this time to add this element to this existing project.

Commissioner Stevens fully supports the project and commended both staff and applicant.

Mr. Stevens suggested a modification to condition of approval # 14 to have a landscape plan that is consistent with the plans that were presented to the Commission at this meeting.

Commissioner Ali - Sullivan said this project is a well-done and appreciates what the applicant has done on as this will be a significant, positive addition to the neighborhood. He noted a business reality is that Starbucks is taking revenue from the developer. Mr. Ali - Sullivan appreciates the significant landscaping, and he has been wanting to see a great development on this corner for a long time and is happy to support this item. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Mendall said it is worthy to note that if the project came before the Commission today that the plan would be different than what was approved six years ago. He said at that time this project was groundbreaking and forward looking, as it had both retail and residential elements and is walkable to the BART station; the City had a lot of trouble getting developers interested in developing this site. He said this developer had a lot of environmental challenges with this site from a previous use and it took time to resolve those issues. He said the project is underway and this drive-thru is the last piece to complete the project. Mr. Mendall said that as a Council Member, he made sure that a viable commercial element was part of the project which also included a park and retail for the community. He said the Starbucks drive thru is a good addition and will be popular with the community and will guarantee long term viability of this commercial/retail site. He had concerns about the look of that corner and other Commissioners have expressed the same concern and recommended to have a modification to COA # 14 that the visuals presented tonight be part of the project plans. Mr. Mendall made a motion to approve the staff recommendation with a modification to COA # 14 that the landscape visuals presented at this meeting are what the Commission expects to see in the long term and will be made part of the permanent plans.

Commissioner Ali - Sullivan seconded the motion.

Commissioner Oquenda appreciates the changes made by the applicant; appreciated the different opinions shared by the public speakers; he is an advocate of inclusionary housing; but this is not the best time to try to force the developer to modify the project given that it has been in front of the CEDC several times and the applicant has made modifications to the project based of those meetings and the feedback that he received from the CEDC. He said Starbucks will be a popular addition and appreciates and agrees with Commissioner Mendall's comments about how the development would be different if it came before the Commission today. Mr. Oquenda supports the project.

Chair Roche supports the project; noted that the bulk of the public email comments were in support of the project; this has been a long haul and wants this project completed. Ms. Roche said this will be a great gateway into this part of town as this site has been a blight on this corner for a long time. She said to include housing on top of the retail would block the view.

Ms. Roche encouraged Ms. Aguilar and Mr. Kirby to continue being advocates for affordable housing just as the Commissioners are. Ms. Roche supports the project and appreciates everyone's work and effort on this project.

A motion was made by Commissioner Mendall seconded by Commissioner Ali - Sullivan, to approve the staff recommendation with a modification to condition of approval # 14: no building permit shall be issued prior to approval of landscape and irrigation plans consistent 4 4f HO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
c REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
c4C/FOR0-
with depictions presented in the City's staff report and as part of the Planning Commission presentation.

The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

AYES: Commissioners Ali - Sullivan, Goldstein, Mendall, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bonilla
ABSTAIN: None

2. Proposed Development of a New Approximately 116,844 Square Foot Industrial Building Requiring Site Plan Review Approval and a Historic Resources Demolition Permit; Certification of an Environmental Impact Report; and Adoption of a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations at 4150 Point Eden Way ( APN 461-0085-020-02). Jerry Owen on Behalf of U -Haul Applicant); Amerco Real Estate Co. ( Property Owner)
Acting Principal Planner Schmidt provided a synopsis of the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Schmidt said staff received a 20 - page letter at 6 p.m. this evening which was forwarded to the Commission.

Mr. George Dix, City's consultant Rincon Consultants, spoke about the letter from Dr.

Smallwood and that they provided written responses. Mr. Dix said they also received a rebuttal letter from Dr. Smallwood and the responses have been addressed and that the mitigation measures in the draft EIR were sufficient to reduce any concerns to less than significant.

Mr. Jerry Owen of U -Haul, spoke about the project and the many agencies that are involved in this project. He said that U - Haul understands that this will be a gateway to Hayward and that they worked on the design to shows this and wants to make sure that they honor the historical value of the property and talked about placing signs along the Bay Trail.

Discussion ensued between staff, Commissioners and applicant and his team regarding the following: Will there be traffic impacts to local roads from trucks coming into the facility; will the salt pond preservation be maintained into perpetuity; mitigation credits one for one ratio and wetland credit; what would happen if building was left in place; to avoid flooding is there a height level requirement; will there be glare off SR92 on the glass part of the building; has the mitigation ratio for approved wetland back changed and why the western segment was not remediated to be wetlands; impacts by converting property to 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
hardscape; and are there soft soils that will require mitigation before construction of the building.

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt responded that there is a flood plain ordinance; Public Works Engineering and Transportation Division looked at this project and staff determined that a local transportation analysis ( LTA) was not warranted. Ms. Schmidt described the U - Haul low impact operation at this site. Ms. Schmidt said in the COAs the salt ponds are to be preserved and the applicant will hold it into perpetuity. Ms. Schmidt stated that the recommendations from the geotechnical report are mitigation measures in the COAs.

Mr. Owen said the project is to be the main warehouse for storage and distribution in this area and there will not be any truck rental at this site.

Ms. Hope Kingma of WRA, said the salt flats and salt ponds do not get tidal influence from the bay and that the Regional Water Quality Control Board oversees the salt ponds. She described the wetland credit; spoke about what would need to be done to mitigate the salt ponds to be able to return these to marshlands. Ms. Kingma said the 32 acres western portion is not part of the project and these waters are under the jurisdiction of the United States. She said there is a significant levy on the southern boundary that precludes any tidal action to flood this parcel.

Mr. Dix spoke about the existing structure, pollutants, and lead from paint and that the impacts from this toxic situation and issues with squatters. He spoke about the general impacts from sea level rise which will occur with or without this project.

Ms. Renata Tyler from AC Martin, spoke about the sea level rise and that the project provides the opportunity to continue working on this area with City staff and other agencies; the proposed building pad is currently two feet above and the only area that would flood is the loading dock; spoke about the soil remediation and that they are working to find the right solution and that the geotechnical report is attached to the EIR.

Ms. Tyler stated that this is not an easy project.

Chair Roche opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.

Mr. Kim Huggett, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project and that staff had relayed how it was very difficult to find a business who would want to take on this complex site. Mr. Huggett spoke about the positive aspects of the applicant.

Mr. Kevin Dowling, Hayward resident and former Council Member, spoke in favor of the project and asked if the City can request that U -Haul dedicate a portion of the land for signage that you are entering Hayward the Heart of the Bay.
6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

Michael Lozeau, spoke on behalf of Local 304 and the following concerns raised by Dr.

Smallwood; impact to habitats; bird collisions; cumulative impacts from vehicles collisions; and noise impacts to neighboring wildlife.

Chair Roche closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.

Mr. Owens said that U -Haul is opened to discussing gateway signage with the City.

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt said the warehouse is not a noise generator and this warehouse is not going to have a generator or equipment that will generate noise. She said that the SR92 generates noise.

Mr. Dix responded about bird strikes and the mitigation measures they have incorporated such as the glass will have architectural features that will break up the glass, the glass is not reflective, and the building is only 50 feet tall.

Ms. Hope Kingma, spoke about the harvest mice and the upland areas are largely non - vegetative; in this case the project will not have a significant reduction in the upland areas and there will area preserved for the harvest mouse.

Commissioner Oquenda asked if there have been any discussions with labor groups about a labor agreement.

The applicant group said there has not been any discussions with labor groups.

Commissioner Ali - Sullivan asked if the signage will be added to the COA. Assistant City Attorney Brick confirmed as such.

Commissioner Mendall is not in favor of the proposed project and that this area along with other industrial areas were rezoned to exclude maintenance yards and to not allow the building of warehouses. This was done because the City does not want to attract warehouses; as the City goal is to attract office buildings; advanced manufacturing; food manufacturing; biotech; and high-tech uses. Mr. Mendall said that he used to work for a high-tech company on that street and shared that there is a hub of these types of uses that area which confirms the viability of the zoning for this area and that the application runs contrary to Council's approved zoning for this area. He said that the Planning Commission must make a statement of overriding consideration and to be able to do this, the Commission has to say that the proposed project is so good that it outweighs the environmental issues that cannot be mitigated. He said that if this was an office building, high-tech or biotech, then the Commission can make this finding as this use will align with job generation and Council goals. 7 of HAYL, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
v ,, o REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Mendall said that a regional warehouse does not serve the Hayward area and that there will only be 25 warehouse jobs. Mr. Mendall said this is a gateway site and the proposed project is in contradiction to City goals. He encouraged his colleagues to vote against this project.

Commissioner Stevens has concerns about the biological impacts as the plan calls for removal of salt marsh sections and once a salt marsh is disturbed, this is a nonstarter. He is having a hard time understanding why this project is before the Commission and the mitigations offered, that even though the mitigations are consistent with state regulations and U.S. Corp policies, he does not agree with this. Mr. Stevens said that a gateway has many meanings and agrees with Commissioner Mendall regarding a gateway for Hayward. He is strongly opposed to having a developer conditioned with the gateway signage as this should be a community event. Mr. Stevens is opposed to building on the bayfront as the bayfront buffer is important for ecological reasons and helps attenuate future sea level rise. Mr. Stevens said there is not sufficient analysis from the report that this will protect Hayward's future. He is very concerned that an analysis was not performed about the potential damage to the City's roadways. Mr. Stevens does not support the project.

Commissioner Goldstein said that both Commissioner Mendall and Commissioner Stevens have made compelling arguments. He concurs with Commissioner Stevens that a gateway memorial would need to have community input. He agrees with Commissioner Mendall about the type of use proposed. Mr. Goldstein said that he supports the project, likes the design and the preservation of the 32 acres is a huge benefit.

Commissioner Oquenda questions why unions have not been engaged in talks with the applicant; he stated that he tends to agree with Commissioner Mendall's aspirational comments about this site being a gateway and will be voting against the project. As discussion ensued, he reviewed the Hayward Shoreline Master Plan and has concerns about long term planning for this area and the ability for the City to address the climate crisis.

Chair Roche appreciates her colleagues' discussion about this item as she was weighing the pros and cons and saw the benefit of the 32 acres preserved into perpetuity and that the dilapidated building would be torn down. Ms. Roche wondered why we are building further out into the bay when the City needs to be shoring up the coastline because of sea level rise.

She would like to see something great as a gateway, did not have an issue with the warehouse building, and appreciates Commissioner Mendall's comments the City's desire to have high- tech uses in this area. Ms. Roche said she asked about a conservation group taking over this property and would like the City to take more time to see what can be done to preserve more of this site or potentially build in a different way on this site. Ms. Roche said that while she is on the fence, she will not be supporting the item and appreciates the applicant's hard work 8 PLANNINGy© HAY
REMOTE PARTICIPATONVMEETINGU ;< r fl
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.
and efforts to make this a good project both environmentally and help with Hayward's development.

Commissioner Stevens made a motion to deny the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Mendall seconded the motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stevens seconded by Commissioner Mendall, to deny the staff recommendation.

The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

AYES: Commissioners Ali - Sullivan, Mendall, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
NOES: Commissioner Goldstein
ABSENT: Commissioner Bonilla
ABSTAIN: None

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

3. Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 10, 2021.

A motion was made by Commissioner Oquenda, seconded by Commissioner Stevens, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 10, 2021.

AYES: Commissioners Ali - Sullivan, Goldstein, Mendall, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Bonilla
ABSTAIN: None

4. Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2021.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stevens seconded by Commissioner Ali - Sullivan, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2021.

The motion passedwith the following roll call votes:

AYES:

NOES:

Commissioners Ali - Sullivan, Goldstein, Mendall, Oquenda, Stevens Chair Roche
None
9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

REMOTE PARTICIPATION
Thursday, July 8, 2021, 7:00 p.m.

ABSENT: Commissioner Bonilla
ABSTAIN: None

COMMISSION REPORTS
Oral Report on Planning and Zoning Matters:

Acting Principal Planner Schmidt announced that for the July 22, 2021, meeting there will be three items that includes a Work Session with a report on transportation impact fees by the Public Works Department.

Commissioners' Announcements, Referrals:

Commissioner Stevens shared that the Alameda County Department of Public Works is working on a plan to design and construct a trail that will link Niles to Sunol and there will be a scoping meeting next Thursday from 6-8 p.m. to review their EIR. He said that information can be found at nilescanyontrail.org.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Roche adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m.

APPJWVED:

Robert Stevens, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTEST:

Denise Chan, Senior Secretary
Office of the City Clerk
10 1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541 8 July 2021
RE: 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project Dear Ms. Schmidt,
I write to reply to the City of Hayward’s responses to comments on the DEIR prepared for the proposed 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project (City of Hayward 2021).

My qualifications as an expert were provided in my original comment letter of 19 May 2021.

I reply to the City’s responses to comments presented in the Final EIR (FEIR). My replies appear under each summarized response, which are numbered consistently with their appearance in the FEIR. Responses to my comments, which the FEIR refers to as Exhibit A, are unnumbered, so I preface my replies to these responses under headings that summarize the relevant issue.

Response 4.4 to Letter 4: Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Food waste, which attracts animals that pose threats to salt-marsh harvest mouse and salt-marsh wandering shrew, is generally associated with either residential areas or commercial development with restaurants, but not with industrial projects such as the proposed project.

Reply: The City’s response is inaccurate. The industrial sites located east of the site of the proposed project harbor house cats and other non-native species. I witnessed a house cat emerge from the neighboring industrial site to hunt on the trail along the east border of the project site.

Response 4.5 to Letter 4: Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Concern over the loss of options for salt-marsh harvest mouse to escape tidal and flood waters are dismissed on the grounds that project mitigation includes the purchase of credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank for the loss of 0.97 acres of waters of the U.S.

Reply: This response misses the point of the comment and applies the wrong mitigation to the impact at issue. The escape refugia is upland vegetation where the mouse can escape inundated pickleweed. The mouse can swim to refugia, but the farther the mouse must swim, the greater the risks to the mouse. The loss of 0.97 acres of wetlands has little to do with the loss of the upland areas to which salt-marsh harvest mouse can find safety when the surrounding pickleweed is flooded. Neither does the purchase of credits for those 0.97 acres have anything to do with mitigating the impact of 8.31 acres of lost refugia.

ATTACHMENT XI
2 Neither would the preservation of 32 on-site acres of former salt ponds qualify as mitigation for the loss of upland refugia. The salt ponds are no longer natural wetlands dominated by pickleweed, but even if they were restored as wetlands, they offer no upland refugia.

Response 4.6 to Letter 4: Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge The reply refers to a discussion of noise in the Initial Study (pages 86-89), thereby implying that the issue raised in the comment was already analyzed.

Reply: The response is misleading because the noise analysis in the Initial Study was focused on impacts to humans, not to wildlife. Wildlife live in the wild, so they tend to suffer more prolonged exposures to noise sources than do humans. And much more so than do humans, wildlife rely on sound for communication and predator detection. Analysis of potential impacts to wildlife from noise exposure is needed, but entirely missing from the EIR. The missing analysis is all the more glaring considering the large number of special-status species that occur in the area, and the multiple threatened and endangered species that have been documented at or near the site.

Sound that humans might find innocuous or even pleasant can be devastating noise to wildlife populations. Animal species vary in their perception of sound due to variation in morphology and variation in exposure to sound mediated by the environments in which they live. Animal species also vary in reactions to noise (sound pollution), and in impacts caused by noise. Within each species, impacts vary by sound pressure (dBA), frequency, duration, timing of exposure within a day or season, and to what degree the same noise adversely affects predatory or competitor species; thus, no single metric, such as dBA, can adequately serve to measure impacts (McKenna et al. 2016). Noise can interfere with, and thus debilitate, either or both sound emission and sound reception from an animal species, and it can alter the animals’ physiology via tissue damage or release of stress hormones. Costs can be expressed as increased energy needed to overcome noise effects, as diminished productivity (i.e., lower reproductive output), as lower fitness, as increased mortality, and ultimately as extirpation.

City of Hayward has not seriously addressed the issue of project noise impacts to wildlife.

Response 4.6 to Letter 4: Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge The response identifies the noise sources as “vehicle circulation noise (e.g., engine startups, alarms, parking) at the on-site parking lot and, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the proposed industrial building,” and explains that “Vehicle trips generated by the project would be only a small fraction of the total trips that occur daily on State Route 92, adjacent to the project site.”

Reply: The response trivializes the effect of noise from the project by suggesting that it would be drowned out by the existing noise of Highway 92, but noise attenuates at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from source. The Initial Study reports that noise is typically measured at 87 dBA at 25 feet from trucks. Therefore, noise from truck traffic on Highway 92 would attenuate to about 58 dBA by the time it reaches the south end of the project site (216 m from the Highway). The attenuation is shown in the table below, in which the first distance is 25 feet expressed in meters.
3 Distance from source (m) dBA

7.62 87

15.24 81

30.48 75

60.96 69
121.92 63
244 57
488 51
976 45

The 58 dBA of Highway noise measurable at the south end of the project site would be exceeded by the 87-dBA noise originating from trucks on the project site. This noise originating from the project site would attenuate at the same rate as in the Table above. Therefore, the project site would extend the noise source of trucks by another 216 m toward the wetlands south of Highway

92. Any of this noise that interferes with wildlife communication and predator detection would be noise that degrades habitat; some of this noise would lessen the extent of suitable habitat to at least some species that currently reside in or migrate to the wetlands.

Noise impacts can contribute to habitat fragmentation, which is defined as the reduced numerical capacity of a species caused by the pattern of habitat loss or degradation (Smallwood 2015).

Habitat-penetration of noise that interferes with auditory signals related to mate-attraction, territorial defense, foraging, and predator alarm-calling can degrade habitat, thereby reducing the effective population size (Anthony and Blumstein 2000). Another impact of noise is physiological stress associated with startling responses to noise and increased effort to overcome noise interference (Francis and Barber 2013). For example, increasing residential noise from 42 dB to 63 dB forced one bird species to increase its call frequency by 9%, which was significant (Slabbekoorn and Peet 2003). Noise impacts can reduce habitat patch sizes, effective movement corridor widths, and habitat connectivity, which reduces the numerical capacity of a species and therefore contributes to habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015). Worse, habitat-penetration of noise can transform habitat patches into ecological sinks for species attracted to the habitat for its structure which visually connotes the availability of cover, forage and breeding opportunities, but where noise will interfere with the species’ ability to capitalize on these opportunities.

Ecological sinks remove individuals of a species from habitat patches where those individuals could have functioned as members of a population had they selected a different habitat patch unpolluted by noise.

Noise affects animal behaviors, so numerical abundance around noise sources is not always the most useful metric for assessing a species’ response to noise (Pater et al. 2009, Francis and Barber 2013). Noise can change activity patterns by time of day or by spatial exposure to noise, and it can be perceived and reacted upon as false threats or false cues. Also, dBA and equivalent continuous sound levels (Leq) are not necessarily the best ways to characterize noise that might adversely affect wildlife (Francis and Barber 2013). Sudden or episodic noises, such as traffic noises, can be more disruptive to some species than continuous or regular noises, so it is helpful to characterize the spectra of noise sources. Noise impacts should be assessed within the 4 auditory frequency range perceived by the species (Pater et al. 2009), so audiograms of each species should be compared to the acoustical spectra of sound sources (Pater et al. 2009).

As an example of what can be learned from comparing avian audiograms to acoustical spectra of sound sources, Warrington et al. (2018) detected most effects of extractive energy noise “resulted from noise frequencies with the greatest overlap with song features.” Warrington et al. (2018) found particular infrastructure generated noise that affected particular aspects of a bird’s call, and these effects were measured at distances of 43 to 451 m from sources. Noise impacts on wildlife can be highly significant, but they are also complex. Whereas thorough analysis of noise impacts on each species of wildlife is likely infeasible, gross analysis is feasible and warranted.

Each special-status species likely occurring at or near the project site should be assessed for potential impacts. Where no scientific data are available for a particular species, one could make careful use of surrogate species for which data are available. For example, lacking measurements of noise impacts on willow flycatcher, one could examine impacts on other species of songbirds. In one study of two frog species exposed to 65 dBA traffic noise, mate- calling frequency declined 42% (Caorsi et al. 2017). For these species, if they were to occur next to the project site and roads leading to and from the site, mating call frequency would lessen by 42% across the area within 15 m of the roadways. In this hypothetical example, and applying it to 10 miles of nearby roadways, effective habitat loss could be estimated as 48.27 ha – (48.27 ha × 0.58 normal call frequency) = 20.27 ha, where the 48.27 ha was calculated as 10 miles × 1,609 m/mile × 15 m × 2 sides of the road.

Another species of frog exposed to 7 days of 70 dBA traffic noise experienced 95% increase in corticosterone levels in the blood, resulting in 56% lower sperm count and 25% lower sperm viability (Kaiser et al. 2015). One might estimate effective habitat loss along 10 miles of nearby roadway in this hypothetical case as 48.27 ha – (48.27 ha × 0.44 sperm count × 0.75 viable sperm) = 32.23 ha.

Table 2 in my comment letter of 19 May 2021 includes 24 special-status species of hummingbirds, woodpeckers and songbirds for which impacts can be predicted by existing studies of surrogate species. For example, Ware et al. (2015) measured changes in songbirds exposed to 61 dBA noise compared to 32 dBA “ambient” sound, finding an 8% decrease in foraging, 21% increase in vigilance, and 30% decrease in feeding duration. They also quantified reduced migration stopover efficiency of multiple species of songbird exposed to 61 dBA noise.

Ware et al. (2015) showed that although avian habitat might look just as suitable after the introduced noise as before, its suitability declines nevertheless.

Response 4.7 to Letter 4: Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge In response to concern over birds colliding with windows facing the Ecological Reserve, City of Hayward writes, “The proposed industrial building was designed to avoid bird strikes, particularly the western-facing windows. As illustrated in the conceptual image of the proposed building below, the western-facing windows would have architectural features that break up the glass surface and protrude outward from the window surface.”

5 Reply: The response treats the bird-window collision issue as the result of two causal factors, which the response characterizes as (1) unbroken expanse of windows on a facade, and (2) the degree to which glass windows protrude from a building. In reality, the bird-window collision problem is much more complex with many hypothesized causal factors. The City’s analysis of the issue is overly simplistic and very likely inaccurate.

If the bird-window collision issue was as simple as portrayed by the City’s response, window collisions would not be characterized as either the second or third largest source or human- caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. However, these estimates were likely biased too low, because they were based on opportunistic sampling, volunteer study participation, fatality monitoring by more inexperienced than experienced searchers, and usually no adjustments made for scavenger removals of carcasses before searchers could detect them (Bracey et al. 2016). A high rate of bird-window collisions has been measured in the Bay Area (Kahle et al. 2016), which is within the prominent bird migration route known as the Pacific Flyway, and within which the proposed project is located. The precedent for high bird-window collision mortality exists both worldwide and locally, and the birds that might collide with the building’s windows are available in abundance along the Pacific Flyway and locally between two adjacent Ecological Preserves.

And the problem is indeed a complicated one.

Below is a list of collision factors I found in the scientific literature, and which I suggest ought to be used to revise the EIR. Following this list are specific notes and findings taken from the literature and my own experience.

(1) Inherent hazard of a structure in the airspace used for nocturnal migration or other flights (2) Window transparency, falsely revealing passage through structure or to indoor plants

6 (3) Window reflectance, falsely depicting vegetation, competitors, or open airspace (4) Black hole or passage effect
(5) Window or façade extent, or proportion of façade consisting of window or other reflective surface
(6) Size of window
(7) Type of glass
(8) Lighting, which is correlated with window extent and building operations (9) Height of structure (collision mechanisms shift with height above ground) (10) Orientation of façade with respect to winds and solar exposure (11) Structural layout causing confusion and entrapment (12) Context in terms of urban-rural gradient, or surrounding extent of impervious surface vs vegetation
(13) Height, structure, and extent of vegetation grown near home or building (14) Presence of birdfeeders or other attractants
(15) Relative abundance
(16) Season of the year
(17) Ecology, demography and behavior
(18) Predatory attacks or cues provoking fear of attack (19) Aggressive social interactions

(1) Inherent hazard of structure in airspace.—Not all of a structure’s collision risk can be attributed to windows. Overing (1938) reported 576 birds collided with the Washington Monument in 90 minutes on one night, 12 September 1937. The average annual fatality count had been 328 birds from 1932 through 1936. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) and Klem et al. (2009) also reported finding collision victims at buildings lacking windows, although many fewer than they found at buildings fitted with widows. The takeaway is that any building going up at the project site would likely kill birds, although mortality would increase with larger expanses of glass.

(2) Window transparency.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the transparency of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred where transparent windows revealed interior vegetation.

(3) Window reflectance.—Widely believed as one of the two principal factors contributing to avian collisions with buildings is the reflectance of glass used in windows on the buildings (Klem 1989). Reflectance can deceptively depict open airspace, vegetation as habitat destination, or competitive rivals as self-images (Klem 1989). Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) felt that many of the collisions they detected occurred toward the lower parts of buildings where large glass exteriors reflected outdoor vegetation. Klem et al. (2009) and Borden et al. (2010) also found that reflected outdoor vegetation associated positively with collisions.

(4) Black hole or passage effect.—Although this factor was not often mentioned in the bird- window collision literature, it was suggested in Sheppard and Phillips (2015). The black hole or passage effect is the deceptive appearance of a cavity or darkened ledge that certain species of bird typically approach with speed when seeking roosting sites. The deception is achieved when 7 shadows from awnings or the interior light conditions give the appearance of cavities or protected ledges. This factor appears potentially to be nuanced variations on transparency or reflectance or possibly an interaction effect of both of these factors. It might play a significant role in the proposed project, as I am concerned that this factor might also express itself from the shadows cast by the project’s design feature intended to break up the glass surface.

(5) Window or façade extent.—Klem et al. (2009), Borden et al. (2010), Hager et al. (2013), Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016), Loss et al. (2019), Rebolo-Ifrán et al. (2019), and Riding et al. (2020) reported increased collision fatalities at buildings with larger reflective façades or higher proportions of façades composed of windows. However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and proportion of façade that was glazed.

(6) Size of window.—According to Kahle et al. (2016), collision rates were higher on large-pane windows compared to small-pane windows. Many of the windows of the proposed project would be large, with hundreds of them each about 2.42 m2 in area, in addition to the expansive bottom-floor windows.

(7) Type of glass.—Klem et al. (2009) found that collision fatalities associated with the type of glass used on buildings. Otherwise, little attention has been directed towards the types of glass in buildings.

(8) Lighting.—Parkins et al. (2015) found that light emission from buildings correlated positively with percent glass on the façade, suggesting that lighting is linked to the extent of windows. Zink and Eckles (2010) reported fatality reductions, including an 80% reduction at a Chicago high-rise, upon the initiation of the Lights-out Program. However, Zink and Eckles (2010) provided no information on their search effort, such as the number of searches or search interval or search area around each building.

(9) Height of structure.—Except for Riding et al. (2020), I found little if any hypothesis-testing related to building height, including whether another suite of factors might relate to collision victims of high-rises. Are migrants more commonly the victims of high-rises or of smaller buildings? Some of the most notorious buildings are low-rise buildings.

(10) Orientation of façade.—Some studies tested façade orientation, but not convincingly. Some evidence that orientation affects collision rates was provided by Winton et al. (2018).

Confounding factors such as the extent and types of windows would require large sample sizes of collision victims to parse out the variation so that some portion of it could be attributed to orientation of façade. Whether certain orientations cause disproportionately stronger or more realistic-appearing reflections ought to be testable through measurement, but counting dead birds under façades of different orientations would help.

(11) Structural layout.—Bird-safe building guidelines have illustrated examples of structural layouts associated with high rates of bird-window collisions, but little attention has been directed towards hazardous structural layouts in the scientific literature. An exception was Johnson and Hudson (1976), who found high collision rates at 3 stories of glassed-in walkways atop an open 8 breezeway, located on a break in slope with trees on one side of the structure and open sky on the other, Washington State University.

(12) Context in urban-rural gradient.—Numbers of fatalities found in monitoring have associated negatively with increasing developed area surrounding the building (Hager et al. 2013), and positively with more rural settings (Kummer et al. 2016).

(13) Height, structure and extent of vegetation near building.—Correlations have sometimes been found between collision rates and the presence or extent of vegetation near windows (Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Kummer et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016). However, Porter and Huang (2015) found a negative relationship between fatalities found and vegetation cover near the building. In my experience, what probably matters most is the distance from the building that vegetation occurs. If the vegetation that is used by birds is very close to a glass façade, then birds coming from that vegetation will be less likely to attain sufficient speed upon arrival at the glass façade to result in a fatal injury. Too far away and there is probably no relationship. But 30 to 50 m away, as proposed for this project (see image used in the response), and birds alighting from vegetation can attain lethal speeds by the time they arrive at the windows.

(14) Presence of birdfeeders.—Dunn (1993) reported a weak correlation (r = 0.13, P < 0.001) between number of birds killed by home windows and the number of birds counted at feeders.

However, Kummer and Bayne (2015) found that experimental installment of birdfeeders at homes increased bird collisions with windows 1.84-fold.

(15) Relative abundance.—Collision rates have often been assumed to increase with local density or relative abundance (Klem 1989), and positive correlations have been measured (Dunn 1993, Hager et al. 2008). However, Hager and Craig (2014) found a negative correlation between fatality rates and relative abundance near buildings.

(16) Season of the year.—Borden et al. (2010) found 90% of collision fatalities during spring and fall migration periods. The significance of this finding is magnified by 7-day carcass persistence rates of 0.45 and 0.35 in spring and fall, rates which were considerably lower than during winter and summer (Hager et al. 2012). In other words, the concentration of fatalities during migration seasons would increase after applying seasonally-explicit adjustments for carcass persistence. Fatalities caused by collisions into the glass façades of the project’s building would likely be concentrated in fall and spring migration periods.

(17) Ecology, demography and behavior.—Klem (1989) noted that certain types of birds were not found as common window-caused fatalities, including soaring hawks and waterbirds. Cusa et al. (2015) found that species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urban greenery were foliage gleaners, and species colliding with buildings surrounded by higher levels of urbanization were ground foragers. Sabo et al. (2016) found no difference in age class, but did find that migrants are more susceptible to collision than resident birds.

(18) Predatory attacks.—Panic flights caused by raptors were mentioned in 16% of window strike reports in Dunn’s (1993) study. I have witnessed Cooper’s hawks chasing birds into 9 windows, including house finches next door to my home and a northern mocking bird chased directly into my office window. Predatory birds likely to collide with the project’s windows would include Peregrine falcon, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk.

(19) Aggressive social interactions.—I found no hypothesis-testing of the roles of aggressive social interactions in the literature other than the occasional anecdotal account of birds attacking their self-images reflected from windows. However, I have witnessed birds chasing each other and sometimes these chases resulting in one of the birds hitting a window.

If the project goes forward as proposed and bird-window collisions occur at a high rate, fatality- reduction measures would be the only practical solution. The most efficacious approach to the problem is to avoid or minimize impacts to the degree feasible at the planning side of the project.

Any new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity. Such surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.

(1) Retrofitting to reduce impacts
(1A) Marking windows
(1B) Managing outdoor landscape vegetation
(1C) Managing indoor landscape vegetation
(1D) Managing nocturnal lighting

(1A) Marking windows.— Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV.

City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Following up on the results of Johnson and Hudson (1976), I decided to mark windows of my home, where I have documented 5 bird collision fatalities between the time I moved in and 6 years later. I marked my windows with decals delivered to me via US Postal Service from a commercial vendor. I have documented no fatalities at my windows during the 10 years hence.

In my assessment, markers can be effective in some situations.

The response depicts vertical slats to break up the glass surface. I have seen such slats on another building. However, it would help for the City to provide the scientific foundation for 10 using this design feature. It would help to reveal any scientific evidence of efficacy. Otherwise, if the proposed design feature is in effective, then the following is my prediction of bird mortality based on what has been measured at many other sites across the USA.

By the time of these replies I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, , City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). Looking over the proposed building design, I estimated the portion of the building that protrudes with expansive glass surfaces would include at least 1,155.3 m2 of glass panels, which applied to the mean fatality rate would predict at least 84 bird deaths per year (95% CI: 50-119) at just this portion of the building. The 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate would be at least 8,400 bird deaths (95% CI: 5,000-11,900). These estimates would be perhaps 3 times higher after accounting for the proportions of fatalities removed by scavengers or missed by fatality searchers where studies have been performed. The mortality of collision fatalities would continue until the building is either renovated to reduce bird collisions or it comes down. If the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 84 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project will cause significant unmitigated impacts.

The project should not go forward as proposed unless the design features can be proven effective. Unless evidence can be provided to soundly support the implementation of the proposed design features, then the City should adhere to available guidelines prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to:
(1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.

For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess efficacy and to quantify post- construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. 11 Response 5.1: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
“The commenter does not provide detail on additional mitigation measures that could be imposed to reduce project impacts.”

Reply: The response is incorrect. Ms. Fenny attached my comments to her letter. My comments included feasible mitigation measures to minimize project impacts.

Response 5.5: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
“The commenter’s opinion - that the Initial Study or Draft EIR conclusion is that no special- status species occur on the project site and that the baseline condition assessment is inadequate – is inaccurate.” And “Neither the Draft EIR or the Initial Study state that special-status wildlife species do not occur on the project site.”

Reply: By a thin margin, I can agree with the response. WRA (2020:17) began by summarily dismissing the possibility of half of the 26 special-status species that WRA determined to occur in the vicinity of the project. (In my comment letter, I determined 79 special-status species of wildlife likely use the site at one time or another). On pages 17-18, WRA wrote that many of the other 13 species “are unlikely to occur on the project site.” Each of the 13 species is then assessed in more detail, and for all but a few of them, the determination was that the species is not expected to occur or similar language to the same effect. WRA concluded that Alameda song sparrow “may nest in the shrubs onsite, or near the project site in the surrounding marshes,” although the DEIR did not report that Alameda song sparrow could nest on the site. WRA also concluded that burrowing owl “may use the levees surrounding the project site for wintering and nesting habitat,” and for white-tailed kite, “shrubs in the eastern portion of the project site may provide marginal nesting habitat for this species.” These are not strong endorsements for potential presence on the project site. The strongest endorsement for presence of a special-status species was “salt marsh harvest mice could potentially be present within the Project Site.” Contributing further to the DEIR’s dwindling of occurrence likelihoods, the DEIR reported that no such species had been seen during the biological surveys. The DEIR presents this outcome in the context of species occurrence likelihood determinations, which in my read of it implies it is evidence of absence. As I pointed out in my comments, this outcome is not evidence of absence.

Response 5.5: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
“The Biological Resources Technical Report prepared by WRA for the project, which is included as an appendix to the Initial Study, analyses 31 special-status wildlife species known from the region, not ten species as the comment letter states.”

Reply: See my reply above. WRA started with 26 species (not 31), then summarily dismissed half of them. Actual analyses were presented only for 16 species. Of these 16 species, I determined that 6 should not have been considered in the first place because it was not reasonable to consider the possibility that those species might occur at the project site. The analyses for those 6 species were empty analyses. I considered that 10 species were legitimately analyzed for occurrence potential.

Response 5.5: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
12 “It should be further noted with respect to the adequacy of the baseline surveys that the methods section of WRA’s Biological Resources Technical Report states that Monk & Associates biologists Mr. Geoff Monk and Ms. Hope Kingma conducted surveys of the project site on January 7, 2015, July 1, 2015, and August 29, 2016.”

Reply: Understood, but where are the results of these surveys. The EIR does not report what species were detected by these biologists during the stated surveys.

Response 5.5: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
“It is important to note that CEQA does not require an exhaustive list of all bird species that could occur on a site...”

Reply: No suggestion was made for the need of an exhaustive list of all bird species that use the site. What is important, however, is to more accurately characterize the existing environment, because this characterization serves as the baseline for analysis of impacts to wildlife. What is also needed is for the EIR to not characterize its 4 reconnaissance-level surveys as sufficient for characterizing the wildlife community of the existing environmental setting. Those surveys performed by Monk & Associates could not possibly have detected anywhere near the complete suite of species that use the site. There should be no implication that they did, just as there should be no implication that those surveys provide evidence of absence of special-status species.

Response 5.6: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
Quotes paragraphs from WRA (2019) as “background” to a speculative argument downplaying the value of the project site to wildlife migration and movement through the area.

Reply: The entire argument is speculative and built on vague, nearly meaningless terms. The same argument used to downplay the value of the site to wildlife would apply equally to the adjacent Ecological Preserves, which also abut Highway 92 and the existing industrial facilities.

According to the argument of the response, neither of the adjacent Ecological Preserves provide any habitat and movement value to wildlife. But I do not agree with this. Furthermore, the documented occurrences of wildlife on the Preserves and on the project site soundly refute the response’s argument.

Response 5.7: Paige Fenny, Lozeau Drury LLP
“The commenter asserts that the project would generate 1,192,862 vehicle miles per year but does not explain how the mileage was calculated and what percentage increase this may represent for the local area.”

Reply: This is not true. I identified where the number came from, which was the DEIR.

The rest of the response is misleading in multiple ways. First, the Vasco Road study I cited was intended as an example foundation for performing an appropriate analysis; it was intended to show the possible magnitude of the impact. Second, the response mischaracterizes the environment of the study area along Vasco Road. There was no agriculture there, nor oak woodlands or riparian. It was grassland. Third, the response conflates a significance finding 13 typically made for traffic analysis to a significance finding regarding wildlife mortality. Traffic analysis in CEQA reviews do not consider impacts to wildlife, so the response’s conflation of significance findings from such analyses is misdirected here. The reality is that adding 1,192,862 vehicle miles per year is going to kill many wild animals. Note that the response was silent on the calculation per my prediction of mortality. The fatality rate might differ between the project site and the Vasco Road study site, but the number of fatalities per year would still be substantial, and significant.

Thank you for your attention,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCE CITED

Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667

Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI

10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211

Caorsi, V. Z., C. Both, S. Cechin, R. Antunes, and M. Borges-Martins. 2017. Effects of traffic noise on the calling behavior of two Neotropical hylid frogs. PLoS ONE 12(8):
e0183342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183342

Cusa M, Jackson DA, Mesure M. 2015. Window collisions by migratory bird species:
urban geographical patterns and habitat associations. Urban Ecosystems 18(4):1–20.

DOI 10.1007/s11252-015-0459-3.
14 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Francis, C. D. and J. R. Barber. 2013. A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation priority. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 11:305–313. doi:10.1890/120183

Gauthreaux, Jr., S. A., J. W. Livingston, and C. G. Belser. 2008. Detection and discrimination of fauna in the aerosphere using Doppler weather surveillance radar.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:12-23.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347

Hager, S. B, and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 2:e460 DOI 10.7717/peerj.460.

Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager, S. B., B. J. Cosentino, and K. J. McKay. 2012. Scavenging effects persistence of avian carcasses resulting from window collisions in an urban landscape. Journal of Field Ornithology 83:203-211.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

15 Kaiser, K., J. Devito, C. G. Jones, A. Marentes, R. Perez, L. Umeh, R. M. Weickum, K. E.

McGovern, E. H. Wilson, and W. Saltzman. 2015. Effects of anthropogenic noise on endocrine and reproductive function in White’s treefrog, Litoria caerulea.

Conservation Physiology 3: doi:10.1093/conphys/cou061.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.

Kummer J. A., and E. M. Bayne. 2015. Bird feeders and their effects on bird-window collisions at residential houses. Avian Conservation and Ecology 10(2):6 DOI

10.5751/ACE-00787-100206.

Kummer, J. A., E. M. Bayne, and C. S. Machtans. 2016. Use of citizen science to identify factors affecting bird-window collision risk at houses. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 118:624-639. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-16-26.1

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1

Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164

16 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206

McKenna, M. F., G. Shannon, and K. Fristrup. 2016. Characterizing anthropogenic noise to improve understanding and management of impacts to wildlife.

Endangered Species Research 31:279-291. doi: 10.3354/esr00760

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652

O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Overing, R. 1938. High mortality at the Washington Monument. The Auk 55:679.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Pater, L. L., T. G. Grubb, and D. D. Delaney. 2009. Recommendations for improved assessment of noise impacts on wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5):788–795.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Rebolo-Ifrán, N., A. di Virgilio, and S. A. Lambertucci. 2019. Drivers of bird-window collisions in southern South America: a two-scale assessment applying citizen science. Scientific Reports 9:18148 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-54351-3

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057

Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density inﬂuences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
17 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562

Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.

Slabbekoorn, H. and M. Peet. 2003. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Ware, H. E., C. J. W. McClure, J. D. Carlisle, and J. R. Barber. 2015. A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. PNAS 112:12105-12109.

Warrington, M. H., C. M. Curry, B. Antze, and N. Koper. 2018. Noise from four types of extractive energy infrastructure affects song features of Savannah Sparrows. The Condor 120(1):1-15.

Winton, R. S., N. Ocampo-Peñuela, and N. Cagle. 2018. Geo-referencing bird-window collisions for targeted mitigation. PeerJ 6:e4215; DOI 10.7717/peerj.4215

Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin cities bird-building collisions: a status update on “Project Birdsafe.” The Loon 82:34-37.

CITY OF HAYWARD
Hayward City Hall
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
www.Hayward-CA.gov
File #: LB 22-005
DATE: February 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Director of Human Resources

SUBJECT
Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2022

RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts a resolution (Attachment II) approving an amendment to the City of Hayward Salary Plan for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY 2022), which designates all classifications and the corresponding salary range for employment in the City of Hayward as of February 14, 2022, superseding Resolution No. 21- 215 and all amendments thereto.

SUMMARY
As required by the Municipal Code, the FY 2022 salary plan has been updated to reflect salary adjustments to the classifications in the City’sclassified service as a result of the negotiated and ratified Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Hayward and the Hayward Association of Management Employees (HAME). The salary plan has also been updated to reflect the addition of the Streets and Landscape Maintenance Supervisor positions and salary adjustments to three additional classifications. On January 27, 2022, the Personnel Commission held a public hearing in which they reviewed and recommended to Council the revised Salary Plan for each position in the City’sclassified service for Fiscal Year 2022, effective February 14, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I Staff Report
Attachment II Resolution
Attachment III FY 2022 Salary Plan
CITY OF HAYWARD Printed on 2/10/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™

Page 1 of 3 ends

Hayward City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Hayward City Council
February 15, 2022