Attachment V CEQA Environmental Consistency Checklist — Hayward City Council, January 23, 2024 (part 1 of 4)

24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of Hayward
Development Services Department, P lanning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, C alifornia 945 41
Contact: Taylor Richard, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2023
Attachment V

24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project
Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
prepared by
City of Hayward
Development Services Department, Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94541
Contact: Taylor Richard, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2023

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 i Table of Contents
Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 1

3. Lead Agency Contact ........................................................................................................... 1

4. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1

5. Project Applicant ................................................................................................................. 1

6. General Plan Designation .................................................................................................... 4

7. Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 4

8. Project Site Setting and Background ................................................................................... 4

9. Description of the Project ................................................................................................... 6

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation Agreement) .............................................................................................10

11. California Native American Tribal Consultation ................................................................10

12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .....................................................................11

13. Determination ...................................................................................................................11 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................13 Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR Analysis ....................................................13 CEQA Guidelines Updates .............................................................................................................14 1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................19 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................23 4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................31 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................37 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................41 7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................45 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................51 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................59 11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................65 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................69 13 N oise .................................................................................................................................71 14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................77 15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................79 16 Recreation .........................................................................................................................83 17 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................85 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................89 City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

ii
19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................93 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................97 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................99 References ..........................................................................................................................................103 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................103 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................105 Tables
Table 1 Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2 Estimated Construction Air Pollution Emissions ..................................................................26 Table 3 Estimated Operational Air Pollution Emissions ....................................................................26 Table 4 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................53 Table 5 Estimated Construction Noise ..............................................................................................73 Table 6 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels .............................................................................75 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site.................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan.................................................................................................................. 8 Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results Appendix B Arborist Report
Appendix C Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Report
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F AB 52 Correspondence

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 1 Project Description

1. Project Title
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Hayward
Development Services Department, Planning Division
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94541

3. Lead Agency Contact
Taylor Richard, Associate Planner
City of Hayward, Planning Division
510-583-5340, [email protected]

4. Project Location
The project site is located in the city of Hayward, on the east side of Mohr Drive just south of its intersection with West Street. The site is approximately 1.45 acres in size and consists of two assessor parcels (APNs), APN 441-0074-030-00 located at 24656 Mohr Drive (Parcel 1) and APN 441- 0074-009-00 located at 24764 Mohr Drive (Parcel 2). Figure 1 shows the regional location of the proposed project and Figure 2 shows the location of the project site in its immediate context.

5. Project Applicant
Nuvera Homes
7041 Knoll Center Parkway, Suite 170
Pleasanton, California 94566
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

2 Figure 1 Regional Location

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 3 Figure 2 Project Site Location

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

4 6. General Plan Designation
The project site is designated Limited Medium Density Residential (LMDR) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan (City of Hayward 2014). The City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Character Element defines the Limited Medium Density Residential category as “Suburban areas that contain a mix of housing types… Allowed uses include detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, multi-family homes. Development Density within the Limited Medium Density Residential category is 8.7 – 12.0 dwelling units per acre.”

7. Zoning
Parcel 1 located at 24656 Mohr Drive is currently zoned Medium Density Residential – Minimum Lot Area 3,500 Square Feet (RMB3.5). The RM zoning district regulations are intended to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life in areas where a compatible mingling of single- family and multiple-family dwellings is possible” (Hayward Municipal Code [HMC] Section 10-1.405).

Parcel 2 located at 24764 Mohr Drive is currently zoned Single Family Residential – Minimum Lot Size 4,000 Square Feet (RSB4). The RS zoning district regulations are intended to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life… The RS district is to be used only for single-family homes and the community services appurtenant thereto” (HMC Section 10-1.205).

8. Project Site Setting and Background
The project vicinity is characterized primarily by residential uses with isolated commercial, religious institutional, educational, and healthcare uses. Specifically, as shown on Figure 2, the project site is bordered by religious uses (the Iglesia Ni Cristo) and single-family residences to the north, single- family residences to the south, baseball and recreational fields associated with Chabot College to the east, and Mohr Drive to the west. Across Mohr Drive are single family residences (The Parks at Bridge Pointe) and an assisted living facility (Arcadian Residential Community).

The project site is generally flat and is developed with two single-family residences and accessory buildings, landscaping, and paved areas for vehicle and pedestrian access. The residences are currently vacant. Figure 3 shows photographs of the project site.

This project is referred to by the project applicant as the Eden Village III project and is the third project of the Eden Village projects with the same applicant. The Eden Village I and II project were previously approved and constructed and are located across Mohr Drive with the address of 24582 Eden Avenue. The Eden Village I and II projects are now called The Parks at Bridge Pointe.

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 5 Figure 3 Photographs of Project Site

Photograph 1: View of 24764 Mohr Drive from Mohr Drive, facing east.

Photograph 2: View of 24656 Mohr Drive from Mohr Drive, facing northeast.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

6 9. Description of the Project
The proposed project would involve rezoning the project site from RMB3.5 and RSB4 to Planned Development (PD) in order to construct a new single-family residential subdivision with 12 single- family residences, seven of which would include Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) on the first floor, as well as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Under the PD zoning, projects are allowed deviations from development standards with the provision of community benefits and amenities. The project would provide amenities in the form of a common open space area, a monument sign, decorative LED street lighting, one electric vehicle (EV) charger per unit, and photovoltaic (PV) solar panels exceeding required kilowattage in the California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) by 10 percent. Therefore, the project would qualify PD zoning and a reduction in required lot standards and setbacks.

The proposed project would include demolition of the existing structures on the site and construction of 12 single-family residences: four detached, single-family residences under Floor Plan 1 and eight detached residences under Floor Plan 2. Floor Plan 1 would include four bedrooms and three bathrooms totaling 2,144 square feet, as well as a two-car garage. Floor Plan 2 would include four bedrooms and three bathrooms totaling 2,200 square feet, as well as a two-car garage. Seven of the units in Floor Plan 2 would include JADUs on the first floor at the at the rear of the house adjacent to the garage and the living room. The JADUs would be 289 square feet, for a total size of the residence of 2,489 square feet. The JADUs are intended to be used for multi-generational living and would include a separate entryway at the rear of the house, a bedroom, a kitchenette, and a bathroom.

The proposed project would include a new private street running along the center of the project site. All 12 single-family residences would have a front and rear setback of 12 feet. Development under Floor Plan 1 would have a side setback of 4 feet, while development under Floor Plan 2 would have a side setback of 5 feet. The proposed project would include 24 garage vehicle parking spaces (two per unit), 24 driveway vehicle parking spaces (two per unit), and six guest vehicle parking spaces, for a total of 54 vehicle parking spaces. Each unit would include one EV charger.

Table 1 summarizes the project characteristics and Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan.

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 7 Table 1 Project Summary
Proposed Project Characteristics RMB3.5 Requirements1 RSB4 Requirements1 Proposed by Project Density N/A N/A 9.8 dwelling units per acre (12 units total)2 Minimum Lot Size 6,000 sf 4,000 sf Lots 1 through 11: 2,758 to 3,375 sf Lot 12: 4,720 sf
Building Height 40 ft (maximum) 30 ft (maximum) 30 ft
Lot Dimensions RMB3.5 Requirements1 RSB4 Requirements1 Proposed by Project Average Lot Width 60 ft (minimum) 50 ft (minimum) 46 ft Average Lot Depth 80 ft (minimum) 80 ft (minimum) 67.5 ft Lot Coverage (percent) 40 percent (maximum) 40 percent (maximum) Lots 1 through 11: 44 to 48 percent Lot 12: 33 percent
Yard Dimensions RMB3.5 Requirements1 RSB4 Requirements1 Proposed by Project Front Setback 20 ft (minimum) 20 ft (minimum) Lots 1 through 11: 11 to 16 ft Lot 12: 16.2 ft
Side Setback 5 ft (minimum) 10 ft (minimum) 4 to 5 ft
Rear Setback 20 ft (minimum) 20 ft (minimum) Lots 1 through 11: 10 ft Lot 12: 32 ft
Parking RMB3.5 Requirements1 RSB4 Requirements1 Proposed by Project Parking Spaces 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit 2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces per unit; 6 visitor spaces (54 total)
1 Pursuant to HMC Section 10-1.2520: Standards of lot area, frontage and width, coverage, density, yards, building heights, site and building design, landscaping, open space, fencing, signs, and parking for uses in a PD District shall be the standards of the zoning district (excluding other PD Districts), Municipal Code, the General Plan, any applicable neighborhood plan, the Design Review Guidelines, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and the Landscape Beautification Plan governing uses most similar in nature and function to the uses proposed in the PD District. Therefore, development standards for the RMB3.5 district would apply for Lots 1 to 4, and the RSB4 district would apply for Lots 5 to 12. 2 Density is calculated for 12 units over 1.22 acres, which is the net area of the project site (total area minus the area for the drive aisle and sidewalk). The seven JADUs are not counted as separate dwelling units under the HMC because they are attached to the single-family residences and do not include kitchens. Therefore, they do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit that would count towards the project’s density.

Notes: sf = square feet; ft = feet, N/A = not applicable City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

8 Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 9 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
The project site would be accessed by pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles via a driveway on Mohr Drive that would lead to the new private street bisecting the project site. Residents would be able to access their residences via walkways and driveways that run vertically down the site in front of their yards facing the private street.

The project would provide two parking spaces per unit in enclosed garages for a total of 24 garage spaces, as well as two driveway parking spaces per unit for a total of 24 driveway spaces on driveways. An electrical vehicle (EV) charging unit would be included for each of the 12 single-family residences. Six guest parking spaces would be provided: one adjacent to Lot 1 and three adjacent to Lot 5 at the Mohr Drive entrance, and two adjacent to Lot 4 and directly across from Lot 8. Total parking on the site would include 54 parking spaces. Each unit would include one EV charger. The proposed project would also include an emergency vehicle access easement and an emergency vehicle turnaround area at the end of the driveway adjacent to Lot 11.

Construction
Project construction would occur over approximately 23 months and would involve approximately 2 weeks of demolition, 3 weeks of site preparation, 8 weeks of grading, 52 weeks of building construction, 8 weeks of architectural coating, and 1 week of paving. Approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil would be imported, with 6,000 cubic yards of cut and 6,000 cubic yards of fill.

Excavation and trenching for utilities would involve a maximum depth of up to approximately 8 feet below ground surface.

Stormwater Management
The project would include three bio-retention areas totaling 1,135 square feet. Bio-retention Area A (380 square feet) would be located north of the driveway entrance fronting Mohr Drive, Bio- retention Area B (520 square feet) would be located south of the driveway entrance, and Bio- retention Area C (235 square feet) would be located at the end of the private street in between Lot 11 and Lot 12. The project would also include approximately 0.59 acres of pervious surfaces, which makes up 41 percent of the site.

Landscaping, Trees, and Irrigation
The project site currently contains 67 trees. Of the 67 trees, there is one Red maple, three Leyland cypress, three Blue gum, two California black walnut, one Apple tree, six Lemon bottlebrush, one Beech tree, one Fruiting pear, one Plum tree, two Cherry trees, two Fig trees, three Persimmon trees, one Olive tree, one Italian stone pine, two Monterey pine, six Lombardy poplar, 12 Coast live oaks, 18 Coast redwood, and one California bay. Three of the 67 trees, one Coast live oak, one Persimmon tree, and one California black walnut, have trunks offsite directly adjacent to the project site with crown overhanging the project site. The proposed project would include removal of 52 trees and would preserve 14 trees, including the three off-site trees. The proposed project would include planting 36 new trees.

Irrigation would include using sprays and bubblers. Landscaping and irrigation would comply with the City’s Bay-Friendly Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance pursuant to HMC Article 12.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

10 Open Space and Amenities
The proposed project would provide private open space areas in the form of yards at the rear of each residence, with the exception of Lot 12 which would provide private open space on the eastern side of the property. Lots 1 through 4 would provide 574 square feet of private open space; Lots 5 through 7 would provide 534 square feet of private open space; Lots 8 through 11 would provide 464 square feet private open space; and Lot 12 would provide 1,915 square feet of private open space.

The area north of Lot 12 would include common open space in the form of a turf block with precast concrete corn hole game, and a small park area with percussion play equipment, a picnic table, a 6- foot bench, and a tic tac toe playboard.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
(e.g., Permits, Financing Approval, or Participation
Agreement)
The City of Hayward is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the project. Discretionary approval from other public agencies is not required. The project would require the following discretionary approvals from the City of Hayward:
 Site Plan Review
 Rezone to Planned Development
 Vesting Tentative Tract Map
In addition to the discretionary approvals and permits listed above, the project would require several ministerial permits from the City of Hayward. For example, a ministerial building permit would be needed from the City’s Building Division, following review and approval of detailed building construction plans. A ministerial sewer connection permit would be required for the project to connect with the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. Ministerial encroachment permits for work in the City’s right-of-way would be needed from the City. Examples of project-related work proposed in the City’s right-of-way include sidewalk and curb improvements along the proposed project frontage.

11. California Native American Tribal Consultation
No California Native American Tribes have requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1.

Project Description

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 11

12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
■ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation and
Traffic
■ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of
Significance

13. Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as a Residential Project pursuant to a Specific Plan and is EXEMPT from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
□ I find that pursuant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the Proposed Project is a Project consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning, that there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site, and NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED.
■ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project that would result in new specific effects. However, these effects would be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. NO FURTHER REVIEW required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

12 □ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies. A STREAMLINED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended.
□ I find that the Proposed Project qualifies as an Infill Project but would result in new specific effects that would not be substantially mitigated under uniformly applicable development policies, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 9/14/2023
Signature Date
Taylor Richard Associate Planner
Printed Name Title
This report follows a checklist format that outlines eligibility criteria for streamlined review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15183. A consistency checklist may be prepared by a lead agency to streamline the environmental review process for eligible projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of development have been addressed in a previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, if the project would result in new specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA. With respect to the effects that are subject to CEQA, the lead agency is to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR if the written checklist shows the effects of the infill project would be potentially significant.

The checklist concludes that the project would not have significant effects on the environment that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR or are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21094.5, such effects are exempt from further CEQA review.

California PRC Section 21083.3 also limits the application of CEQA to effects on the environment peculiar to the parcel or to the project and that were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or about which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR, when projects are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[a], also PRC Section 21083.3[b]).

This CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Consistency Checklist has been prepared in accordance with PRC Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

Environmental Checklist

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 13 Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, projects consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified may not require additional review unless there may be project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or site that were not adequately addressed in the EIR for the general plan. In approving a project meeting the requirements of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public agency must limit its examination of environmental effects to those the agency determines in an Initial Study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR
The purpose of this checklist is to assess consistency between the proposed project and the City of Hayward General Plan, and to compare the environmental effects of the proposed project with the those identified in the City’s General Plan EIR to determine if additional environmental review is required under CEQA, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Relationship of the Proposed Project to Previous EIR
Analysis
The City of Hayward adopted the 2040 General Plan on July 1, 2014. It includes goals and policies that convey the City’s long-term vision and guide local decision making to reach that vision. The General Plan EIR assessed impacts from the implementation of the General Plan and was certified in 2014 when then City Council approved the General Plan.

Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances City of Hayward 2040 General Plan
The project would be located entirely in the City of Hayward. The General Plan is the fundamental document that governs land use development. It includes goals and policies relating to economic vitality, land use, growth management, transportation, parks, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is LMDR, which allows for detached single-family residences, attached single-family residences, and multi- family residences with residential densities between 8.7 and 12.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would have a density of 9.8 dwelling units per acre, 1 which would be within the

1 Density is calculated for 12 units over 1.22 acres, which is the net area of the project site (total area minus the area for the drive aisle and sidewalk). The seven JADUs are not counted as separate dwelling units under the HMC because they are attached to the single-family residences and do not include kitchens. Therefore, they do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit that would count towards the project’s density.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

14 range of allowed density for development with a LDMR land use designation. Consistent with General Plan policies LU-1.3 and LU-1.4, the project would add residential density at an underutilized site.

City of Hayward Development Code
The project includes requests for a rezone and the approval of permits, as described above under Project Approvals. Parcel 1 located at 24656 Mohr Drive is currently zoned Medium Density Residential – Minimum Lot Area -3,500 Square Feet (RMB3.5) and Parcel 2 located at 24764 Mohr Drive is currently zoned Single Family Residential – Minium Lot Size – 4,000 Square Feet (RSB4). The proposed project would involve a zone change for the project site to PD. The purpose of the PD zone is to:
 Encourage development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation, which through efficient and attractive space utilization emphasizes conservation, open space, and recreational amenities, and which is harmonious with the natural characteristics of the land, including topography, ponds, rock outcroppings, significant tree clusters, and ridge tops.  Establish development procedures and standards whereby such lands may be developed most appropriately to maintain and enhance the natural and man-made advantages of such sites.  Foster well designed residential and nonresidential development, encouraging projects incorporating a variety of housing types or combinations of residential and nonresidential uses by allowing diversification in the relationship of uses, buildings, architectural design, lot sizes, yard areas, and open spaces which may not be achievable under other zoning districts.  Carry out the policies and objectives of the General Plan, Design Review Guidelines, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and the Landscape Beautification Plan and to meet the standards necessary to satisfy the requirement for public health, safety, and general welfare (HMC Section 10-

1.2505).

As shown in Table 1, the project would not be consistent with minimum lot size, minimum average lot width, minimum average lot depth, maximum lot coverage, minimum front setback, minimum side setback, or minimum rear setback for the RMB3.5 or RSB4 zones. However, the applicant is requesting a rezone to PD which allows for deviations from development standards with the provision of community benefits and amenities. The proposed project is proposing amenities and public benefits in the form of a common open space area, a monument sign, decorative LED street lighting, EV chargers, and solar PV panels exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10 percent. Therefore, the proposed project would be allowed to request a PD rezone and deviate from applicable development standards. With approval of the PD rezoning the proposed project and use would be consistent with the zoning provisions of the HMC. Pending approval of the requested zone change, the project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

CEQA Guidelines Updates
Since the time the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan EIR was certified, the CEQA Guidelines have been updated by the State of California; the revised Guidelines are in effect as of December 2018.

Therefore, this report is based on the current 2023 Appendix G checklist questions in the updated CEQA Guidelines. The current Appendix G checklist questions form the basis for this analysis.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 15 1 Aesthetics

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially Mitigated
by Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Except as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
□ □ ■ □ □
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
□ ■ □ □ □
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
□ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
Impacts related to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 5-1 through 5-34 of the General Plan EIR.

Impacts to aesthetics from implementation of the General Plan were determined to be less than significant.

The following summarizes the applicable analysis from the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

16 documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  NO IMPACT
The aesthetic quality in the City of Hayward is characterized by a relatively urban, dense development pattern that can restrict scenic views. However, locations in the hills and some points on the shoreline provide scenic vistas of San Francisco Bay and the East Bay Hills. The General Plan EIR finds that impacts to these scenic vistas from expected future development would be minimal with the implementation of General Plan policies that include preserving open space at or near the vistas and design guidelines that call for the protection of views.

The project site is surrounded by one- to two-story residential, recreational, and religious uses.

Views of the shoreline or hills are currently not available through the site. Accordingly, existing lines of site from or to the shoreline and hills would not be affected adversely. The project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas and would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Interstate (I-) 580 (north of Hayward), I-880 (Nimitz Freeway), and State Route (SR) 92 (Jackson Freeway) are designated by Alameda County as scenic routes. I-580 is an eligible, but not officially designated, State Scenic Highway. The General Plan EIR finds the impacts to these scenic highways from development would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan policies that call for consistency with city design guidelines, clustering of residential units to ensure the protection of visual resources, and protection of the visual characteristics of transportation corridors officially designated as having outstanding scenic qualities.

The project site is located approximately 0.4 miles west of I-880 and approximately 0.8 miles north of SR-92. Due to distance and the presence of intervening structures, the project site is not visible from I-880 or SR-92. Moreover, the project would not affect rock outcroppings or historic buildings, as none of these features are present on the site. Therefore, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR there would be no damage to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is in an urbanized area and is currently developed with two existing one-story single-family residences and accessory structures. The project would alter the existing visual Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 17 character of the site by introducing 12 detached two-story residential buildings, a private roadway, landscaping, and a common open space area. The General Plan EIR analyzed construction of infill developments such as the proposed project and found no significant impacts to the existing visual character would occur. The existing visual quality at the project site is moderate as the site is currently developed and does not support trees or other significant vegetation or topographic features of visual interest. Since the project would be required to comply with applicable development standards and includes new landscaping, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character at the site.

As noted under Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances, although the project would conflict with applicable standards for minimum lot size, minimum average lot width, minimum average lot depth, maximum lot coverage, minimum front setback, minimum side setback, or minimum rear setback, it would be consistent with all other RSB4 and RMB3.5 zoning requirements and would implement General Plan policies LU-1.3 and LU-1.4, which call for additional residential density on underutilized sites. Additionally, at two stories, or a building height of 30 feet, the scale of the project would be generally consistent with that of surrounding development, which ranges from one to three stories in height. The proposed project would feature contemporary design with rectangular windows, wood paneling, and painted stucco, similar to surrounding buildings in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would be architecturally compatible with existing surrounding residential uses and would be compatible with neighboring building forms. The project would also be subject to Site Plan Review by the City via the PD rezoning to ensure its compliance with applicable development standards. Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

This impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is located in an urbanized area with existing lighting. Lighting sources around the project site include streetlights, lights from residential and commercial uses, and lights from vehicles on Mohr Drive. The primary source of glare in the vicinity is sunlight reflected off light-colored and reflective building materials and finishes, and metallic and glass surfaces of vehicles parked in parking lots or along Mohr Drive.

The project would be required to comply with light and glare standards outlined in HMC Section 10-

1.445(j) related to building exteriors and parking lots, as well as General Plan Policy LU-3.6 which would require new development to include pedestrian-scaled lighting on new streets. Project landscaping and trees on site would minimize glare that could adversely affect daytime views in the area. Since the project site is not located near light-sensitive receptors and the project would be consistent with surrounding land uses in type and intensity of light and glare, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of the project would result in no new or more severe impacts concerning lighting beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

18 result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 19 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the Prior
EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
12220(g)); timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
□ □ □ ■ □
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
□ □ □ ■ □
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

20 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses agricultural impacts in the agricultural and forestry resources section, on pages 6-1 through 6-6, and identifies a less than significant impact to agricultural and forestry resources.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is in the urbanized, relatively densely developed area in City of Hayward. The project site is currently zoned RSB4 and RMB3.5. According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC), the project site is categorized as urban and built-up land and is not zoned or used for agricultural or forest uses. Furthermore, there are no active Williamson Act contracts for the project site or adjacent properties (DOC 2017). According to the General Plan EIR, no lands in the Hayward Planning Area are designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (City of Hayward 2014a). The project consists of infill development in an urban area and would not convert existing farmland or change agriculture resources to a non- agricultural use. As the proposed project is an infill development, it would not encroach on existing or potential grazing land or forest land. There would be no impact to agricultural or forest resources beyond those identified in the previous environmental documents.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 21 result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

22 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 23 3 Air Quality

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
□ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
□ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses air quality impacts on pages 7-1 through 7-40 and finds that odor- related impacts would be less than significant. Impacts associated with short-term construction, long-term operational emissions, and health risk exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) would be significant and unavoidable, even after application of feasible mitigation. The General Plan EIR includes the incorporation of specific source-reduction and receptor-oriented risk reduction measures and best management practices (BMP) in the General Plan, although the overall effectiveness of these measures in reducing communitywide health risk could not be quantified. These impacts would, therefore, remain significant and unavoidable.

Because the General Plan would not be fully consistent with the primary goals of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan with the elevated emissions projected, the General Plan EIR found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The following describes the applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine if project-specific impacts would occur that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

24 have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The primary goals of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2010 Clean Air Plan are as follows:
 Attain air quality standards
 Reduce population exposure and protect health in the Bay Area  Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate As addressed in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan would be substantially consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, but the General Plan would still have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with short-term construction and long-term operational emissions, as well as health risk exposure associated with TACs and PM

2.5. Because the General Plan exceeds BAAQMD
thresholds of significance even after implementation of all feasible mitigation, it would not be fully consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan goals.

The General Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes compliance with the 2010 Clean Air Plan’s air quality control measures. These measures fall into five categories: stationary source measures, transportation control measures, mobile-source measures, land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. The General Plan policies and implementation programs are consistent with these control measures. A project that would not support these measures would not be considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2010 Clean Air Plan goals. The project would not generate emissions exceeding those anticipated by the General Plan EIR, as discussed in items b and c, and therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2010 Clean Air Plan’s goals. For this reason, this impact would be less than significant.

The most current clean air plan, Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area (2017 Clean Air Plan) was adopted by BAAQMD in April 2017 (BAAQMD 2017). The legal impetus for the 2017 Clean Air Plan was to update the 2010 Clean Air Plan to comply with state air quality planning requirements codified in the California Health and Safety Code. The 2017 Plan focuses on two paramount goals, both consistent with the mission of BAAQMD:
 Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all national and state air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TACs
 Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate that a project:
 Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 25  Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan  Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures A project that would not support the 2017 Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 Plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support with the 2017 Plan’s goals. As discussed under Impact (b) below, the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants and thus would not conflict with the 2017 Plan’s goal to attain air quality standards.

The 2017 Plan includes goals and measures to increase the use of electric vehicles, promote the use of on-site renewable energy, and encourage energy efficiency. The project includes features that are consistent with these goals and measures, including meeting California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) requirements, full electrification of the residences, incorporating energy efficient appliances and lighting, providing water-efficient appliances and fixtures, providing PV solar panels with kilowattage exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10 percent, and providing one EV charger per unit. Additionally, the project site would be located within 0.5 mile of AC Transit bus routes 60 and 97 on Hesperian Boulevard and would be in proximity to Class III bicycle routes on Eden Avenue and Clawiter Road which future residents would be able to utilize, which would encourage the use of bicycling and transit (City of Hayward 2020a).

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR, and impacts would be less than significant impact. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan EIR assesses air quality impacts on a programmatic level and recognizes that site- specific impacts are assessed during project review.

The proposed project would result in temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions. Construction activities such as the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM
10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade regional air quality. Long-term emissions associated with operational impacts would include emissions from vehicle trips (mobile sources), electricity use (energy sources), and landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with on-site development (area sources).

Construction Emissions
Project construction for the proposed project would occur over approximately 24 months. Table 2 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of pollutants during construction on the project site. As shown in the table, the BAAQMD construction thresholds would not be exceeded.

Therefore, impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

26 Table 2 Estimated Construction Air Pollution Emissions Year
Emissions (lbs/day)

ROG NOX CO
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust) SOX
Maximum Daily Emissions 5 20 21 1 1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds
(average daily emissions)
54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

N/A = not applicable; lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; SOx = oxides of sulfur.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX
Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 3, operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD operational thresholds for criteria pollutants.
2 Operational impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3 Estimated Operational Air Pollution Emissions
Sources
Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SOX
Average Daily Emissions
Mobile <1 <1 3 1 <1 <1
Area 1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Emissions 1 <1 4 1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 N/A 82 54 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets; emission data presented is the highest of winter or summer outputs.

No BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX,
Note: numbers may not add up due to rounding
Criteria Pollutant Emissions Summary
Construction and operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants and would comply with BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds. The proposed project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR.

This impact would be less than significant.

2 The proposed solar panels on building roofs were not included in the air quality modelling. Therefore, this analysis presents a conservative estimate of daily emissions due to energy use.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 27 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of development projects consistent with the General Plan could involve placing sensitive receptors near major roadways, railroads, or other sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). The General Plan contains a Community Risk Reduction Strategy (CRRS) that includes specific policies, as well as more detailed emission source reduction and receptor-oriented risk reduction measures and best management practices (BMPs). However, the General Plan EIR found that this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Certain population groups such as children, the elderly, and people with health issues are particularly sensitive to air pollution. The majority of sensitive receptor locations are residences, locations where children are present (such as childcare centers, preschools, or kindergarten to Grade 12
th schools), and hospitals. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located to the north, south, and west of the project site. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and TACs, which are discussed in the following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at areas with high vehicle density, such as intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. A project’s localized air quality impact is considered significant if CO concentrations exceed the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm and state one-hour standard of 20 ppm, or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2021).

BAAQMD recommends comparing a project’s attributes with the following screening criteria as a first step to evaluating whether the project would result in the generation of CO concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the Thresholds of Significance (BAAQMD 2023).

The project would result in a less than significant impact to localized CO concentrations if:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44, 000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

The project would include 12 new detached two-story residential buildings. Due to the project’s size, it would not generate a substantial number of trips such that it would affect localized CO concentrations. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project is presumed to have less than significant VMT or congestion impacts because it is under 25 units. The project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program.

Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to localized CO emissions.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

28 Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2021).

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 24 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 24 months) is approximately seven percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health-risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (BAAQMD 2017b).

The maximum PM
10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during site preparation and grading activities.

These activities would last for approximately 11 weeks. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with site preparation and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent less than one percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned discussion, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and this impact would be less than significant.

Operation
Sources of operational TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high- volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project does not include construction of new gas stations, dry cleaners, highways, roadways, or other sources that could be Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 29 considered new permitted or non-permitted source of TAC or PM2.5 in proximity to receivers. In addition, the project would not introduce a new stationary source of emissions and the mobile emissions generated from the project would be minimal due to the project size and spread over a broad geographical area. Therefore, project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. The project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR, and this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As addressed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of residential development projects, such as the proposed project, would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people (City of Hayward 2014b). According to the BAAQMD, odor-generating projects include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants, none of which are proposed (BAAQMD 2023). The project involves residential uses which would not create objectionable odors.

Therefore, the project would not emit odors beyond those previously assessed; no impacts beyond those previously analyzed would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the air quality policies in the General Plan EIR along with the project-specific comparison to BAAQMD emissions thresholds included above, no significant impacts or peculiar circumstances associated with the proposed project would occur that require additional review. The project would be required to comply with applicable City and BAAQMD regulations, and, thus, would not result in new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to air quality. In addition, there would not be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Furthermore, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

30 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 31 4 Biological Resources

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
□ □ □ □ ■
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
□ □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
□ □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
□ □ ■ □ □
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

32 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
□ □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses biological resources impacts on pages 8-1 through 8-32 and finds impacts to be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The project site is located in an urbanized area of Hayward and has been graded and developed/paved for the existing two single-family residences and associated structures. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022). A search on the Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species database showed no federal-or state-listed endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise sensitive flora or fauna on the project site (USFWS 2022). The project site is not located within known regional wildlife movement corridors or other sensitive biological areas as indicated by the USFWS Critical Habitat portal or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) BIOS. Additionally, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, policies in the General Plan would avoid or reduce impacts on wildlife habitats to a less than significant level.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 33 There are 67 trees onsite. The applicant’s Arborist Report (HortScience, April 19, 2022) (Appendix B to this checklist) shows the removal of 52 trees on the property. The existing trees to be removed may support nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The removal of trees and general construction activity may affect protected nesting birds. This impact is potentially significant. However, incorporation of the following City of Hayward Standard Condition of Approval (COA) would ensure no violations of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) occur as a result of project development. With implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval outlined below, impacts to nesting birds would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
As applicable, if project construction activities occur between February 15 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to construction. The survey shall include the entire project site and a 300-foot buffer to account for nesting raptors. If nests are found, the qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate species-specific avoidance buffer of sufficient size to prevent disturbance to the nest by project activity (up to 300 feet for raptors, up to 150 feet for all other birds). The qualified biologist shall perform at least two hours of pre-construction monitoring of the nest to characterize "typical" bird behavior. During construction, if active nests are present, the qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds to determine if construction activities are causing disturbance to the bird and shall increase the buffer if it is determined the birds are showing signs of unusual or distressed behavior associated with project activities. Atypical nesting behaviors that may cause reproductive harm include, but are not limited to, defensive flights, vocalizations directed towards project personnel/activities, standing up from a brooding position, and flying away from the nest. The qualified biologist shall have authority, through the resident engineer, to order the cessation of all project activities if the nesting birds exhibit atypical behavior that may cause reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) until a refined appropriate buffer is established. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) should be marked clearly by high visibility material. The established buffer(s) should remain in effect until the young have fledged or the nest has been abandoned, as confirmed by the qualified biologist. Any sign of nest abandonment should be reported to the City and CDFW within 48 hours. The monitoring biologist, in consultation with the resident engineer and project manager shall determine the appropriate protection for active nests on a case-by-case basis using the criteria described above.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in an urbanized area of Hayward and has been graded and developed/paved for the existing two single-family residences and associated structures. The proposed project would involve the construction of 12 new detached two-story residential buildings. No riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities are present on or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, policies in the General Plan would reduce impacts on riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

34 c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
 NO IMPACT
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was reviewed to determine if any wetland and/or non- wetland waters had been previously documented and mapped on or in the vicinity of the proposed survey area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2023). The closest mapped resource is a riverine contained within a channel (the Hayward Landing Canal). While the NWI mapped location of the channel is located approximately 160 feet north of the project site at the southwest corner of the intersection of Mohr Drive and West Street, the daylighted portion of the canal is located approximately 700 northwest of the project site west of the intersection of Eden Avenue and West Street. The proposed project would not involve the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to the riverine. Additionally, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, policies in the General Plan would reduce impacts on wetlands to a less than significant level Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in an urbanized area of Hayward and has been graded and developed/paved for the existing two single-family residences and associated structures. Land uses surrounding the project site include residential and recreational uses in an urban setting, with no near-by natural lands or open space, and no known or potential wildlife movement corridors. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, policies in the General Plan would reduce impacts on wildlife movement corridors to a less than significant level. No impacts to wildlife movement corridors would occur.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The Arborist Report (Appendix B) identified 67 trees on site representing 19 different species: Red maple, Leyland cypress, Blue gum, California black walnut, Apple, Lemon bottlebrush, Beech spp., Fruiting pear, Plum spp., Cherry spp., Fig spp., Persimmon spp., Olive, Italian stone pine, Monterey pine, Lombardy poplar, Coast live oak, Coast redwood, and California bay. Of the 67 trees, three were identified as off-site trees (Monterey pine, Persimmon spp., and California black walnut).

Hayward Municipal Code Chapter 10, Article 15, Tree Preservation, requires a permit for the removal, destruction, or cutting of branches over one inch in diameter, or disfigurement of protected trees, among other requirements. Sixty-two of the 67 trees were identified as protected and cannot be removed without a permit. The proposed project would include removal of 52 trees and would preserve 14 trees, including the three off-site trees. The proposed project would involve planting 36 new trees. The removal of trees could potentially result in a significant impact. However, incorporation of the following City of Hayward Standard Condition of Approval would ensure protection of trees and compliance with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. With implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval outlined below, impacts to trees would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 35

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL

1. Tree Removal Permit. The Tree Removal permit shall be obtained from City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of grading permit and prior to removing any trees. Tree removal permit shall be obtained in addition to grading permit and/or demolition permit.

2. P re- construction and Demolition Measures for Tree Preservation. a. Establish a Tree Protection Zone around each tree to be preserved. For design purposes, the Tree Protection Zone shall be the dripline or property line for trees. No grading excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within the protection zone. b. Non-movable chain link fence as shown in the detail shall be installed around the Protected Zone of each tree to be preserved prior to start of construction. No entry is permitted into a Tree Protection Zone without permission of the Project Arborist. c. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide clearance and/or correct defects in structure. All pruning shall be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and shall adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 safety standards as well as the ISA Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning with a tree pruning permit from the City. The pruning contractor shall have the C-27/D-49 license specification. d. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife Code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

3. Tree Protection During Construction.
a. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees for preservation are required to meet with the Project Arborist at the site to review all work procedure, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. b. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Project Arborist. Any necessary root pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. Roots shall be cleanly pruned with a handsaw or sawzall, immediately covered with wet burlap, and kept moist until backfilled. A tree pruning permit shall be require for cutting equal or larger than one-inch diameter roots.
c. If damages should occur to any existing trees designated for preservation during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Project Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. If the damages to tree result in removal, removed tree shall be replaced to its appraised value provided by the Project Arborist and approved by City Landscape Architect.
d. Tree protection fence shall remain until all site work has been completed. Fences shall not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist. e. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel with a tree pruning permit from City Landscape Architect.
f. Existing trees designated for preservation shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Project Arborist. Each irrigation session shall be wet the soil within the Tree Protection Zone to a depth of 30 inch.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

36 4.Tree Replacement and Maintenance During Construction. Replacement trees shall be planted with sufficient space to accommodate the mature size of the species and maintained sufficiently to ensure establishment. Preserved trees shall also be maintained to ensure the continued long- term health of the tree. Trees on-site will require monitoring and routine maintenance by a landscape specialist such as occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting, and irrigation.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
 NO IMPACT
No habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other similar plans are in place that govern activities on the project site. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with a habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur.

Conclusion
With incorporation of the Standard Condition of Approval described in this section, the project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to biological resources, nor are there potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 37 5 Cultural Resources

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
as defined in Section
15064.5?
□ □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
□ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes cultural resources on pages 12-1 through 12-13 and finds that impacts to sites of local importance, overall historic setting, and previously undiscovered archaeological resources would be less than significant and impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is currently developed with two single-family residences and associated accessory buildings. Rincon Consultants conducted a cultural resources desktop analysis for the project in July 2023, included as Appendix C to this checklist. As part of the report, a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) was conducted to identify previous cultural resources studies and previously recorded City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

38 cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the project site. The NWIC record included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), as well as its predecessor the California State Historic Property Data (HPD) File. Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list. The CHRIS records search and background research identified 12 cultural resources studies within 0.5 miles of the project site. Of these studies, none included a portion of the project site or were immediately adjacent to the project site, and no known studies have been previously conducted within or adjacent to the project site. No previously recorded historic structures were identified on the project site. The field survey and background identified two historical age properties on the site at 24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive and Rincon Consultants evaluated the properties for historical resources eligibility. The report prepared by Rincon Consultants found that both properties are recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under any eligibility criteria due to a lack of historical or architectural significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect historical resources and this impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search, field survey, and Native American consultation process identified no archaeological resources within the project site. The project site is not known to contain human remains. Nonetheless, the discovery of remains or resources is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. With incorporation of the following City of Hayward Standard Condition of Approval to account for unanticipated discovery, impacts would be mitigated substantially by uniformly applicable development policies.

TANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
If human remains, archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts, or paleontological resources are discovered during construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Planning Division shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming groundbreaking construction activities.

Standardized procedure for evaluation accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.f and 151236.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Conclusion
Cultural resource assessments of the project area were conducted, and their findings incorporated into the analysis above. Adherence to General Plan policies and the Standard Condition of Approval listed above would be implemented to reduce impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains to less than significant levels. Accordingly, the project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to cultural resources, nor are there any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 39 previously identified significant effects which, because of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

40 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Energy

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 41 6 Energy

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
□ ■ □ □ □
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (Energy Conservation) and the updated Appendix G guidelines published in December of 2018 require that environmental analysis include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Energy consumption accounts for energy consumed during construction and operation of the proposed project, such as fuel consumed by vehicles, natural gas consumed for heating and/or power, and electricity consumed for power.

Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on energy on pages 21-9 through 21-24. This discussion addresses the issues of inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts related to energy consumption as less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

42 a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the only purveyor of electricity and natural gas in Hayward and would supply energy to the project site. Construction of the proposed project would result in short- term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

The proposed project would involve the use of energy during construction and operation. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary grid power may be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary. Construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region.

Operation of the proposed project would generate energy demand in the form of transportation fuel from vehicle trips with the additional population anticipated at the project site. In addition to this transportation energy use, operation of the project would require permanent grid connections for electricity. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the HMC, which incorporates the latest iterations of CALGreen. This code requires the provision of electric vehicle charging stations, water efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, and other energy-efficient measures. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s 2023 Reach Code which states that all single-family and multi-family residential buildings be all electric and requires two Level 2 EV ready parking spaces per dwelling unit (City of Hayward 2022). The proposed project would exceed the City’s Reach Code requirements by providing one EV charger per unit. Furthermore, the proposed project would include solar PV panels exceeding Title 24 requirements by 10 percent.

Overall, operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of fuels from vehicle trips and electricity from proposed residential buildings. Project energy consumed would represent an incremental increase in energy usage compared to existing conditions, and the proposed project would implement energy-efficient components to reduce energy demand. The General Plan EIR notes that population growth in the city is a key driver for increasing energy demands. The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of Hayward. However, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be within with General Plan population growth forecasts and consistent with the use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR analysis. According to the General Plan EIR, the city and PG&E has sufficient energy supply to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). Overall, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption and this impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of Hayward adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 to bring the city into compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375 and statewide GHG reduction goals. The CAP was adopted in response to Environmental Checklist
Energy

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 43 State mandates and regional guidance on reducing GHG emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). While targeted toward reducing citywide GHG emissions, the CAP includes energy efficiency measures to reach emissions reduction targets. Energy-related measures described in the CAP include building energy efficiency strategies, conducting outreach programs to encourage renewable energy installation, and encouraging the use of alternatively fueled construction and landscape equipment.

As a part of the General Plan update process for the 2040 General Plan, the City re-evaluated the greenhouse gas reduction estimates assigned to individual actions contained in the 2009 CAP. This analysis resulted in the development of new and modified actions that were incorporated into the 2040 General Plan and its overall policy framework. Therefore, the energy efficiency measures contained in the CAP are required and would be adhered to with implementation of the proposed project.

The General Plan EIR analyzed the policies contained within the planning document to identify goals, policies, implementation programs, and potential outcomes that address the significance criteria for impacts related to energy consumption. Several policies in the General Plan aim to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. These policies include actions designed to reduce electricity and natural gas use or to reduce fuel consumption (e.g., less driving), and implementation of these policies and actions would therefore reduce energy consumption. Several 2040 General Plan policies, including LU-1.1, LU-1.3, LU-1.5, LU-1.6, LU-1.8, and LU-1.9, promote local growth patterns and sustainable development practices to reduce resource and energy consumption overall. This is consistent with the type of infill development planned for the proposed project. Other policies focus specifically on energy-efficient design and renewable energy use to reduce wasteful energy consumption. These include policies NR-4.1 through NR-4.15, which define implementation programs to encourage development of green buildings and infrastructure, and to promote collaboration with energy-efficient contractors.

Because the proposed project would comply with the HMC which incorporates the latest iterations of CALGreen requirements as well as the City’s Reach Code, it would be consistent with these energy-efficiency policies. The proposed project would not interfere with the 2040 General Plan or the CAP’s energy-efficiency policies and would not conflict with or obstruct the state plan for renewable energy. Additionally, the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to energy consumption, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

44 This page left intentionally blank.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 45 7 Geology and Soils

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
□ □ ■ □ □

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
□ ■ □ □ □

3. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
□ ■ □ □ □

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is made unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
□ ■ □ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
□ □ □ □ ■
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

46 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal
of wastewater?
□ □ ■ □ □
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
□ □ □ □ ■
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses geology and soils impacts on pages 9-1 through 9-18 and concludes that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine project-specific would occur impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?  NO IMPACT
The project is not within an earthquake fault zone (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2023). The Hayward Fault is the closest fault line to the project site, located approximately 2.5 miles to the east. The project would not expose people or structures to adverse effects due to fault rupture. No impact would occur.
a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 47 The project site is in an area subject to seismic ground shaking. The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for fault rupture and strong seismic ground shaking from seismic events. As noted in the General Plan EIR, ground shaking in the Hayward area could cause significant damage, but with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the California Building Code to minimize earthquake-related hazards. The project site is located on a liquefaction zone subject to moderate liquefaction (DOC 2023; ABAG 2020). However, according to the geotechnical report prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc on August 8, 2022 (Appendix D), the project site is underlain by a thick predominantly non-liquefiable cover which would reduce the possibility for liquefaction-induced ground rupture to occur at the site during a major earthquake on a nearby fault. This impact would be less than significant.
a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?  NO IMPACT
The project site is located in a generally flat area and not surrounded by substantial slopes, as shown in Figure 9 -3 of the 2040 General Plan Background Report (City of Hayward 2014c). There is no risk of landslide affecting the project site. No impact would occur. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
As stated in the General Plan EIR, areas in Hayward most susceptible to soil erosion include those where new development in hilly areas would require extensive grading (City of Hayward 2014b). The project site and surroundings are generally flat. In addition, construction of the project would be required to adhere to applicable General Plan policies and building codes including the California Building Code Section 1804 Excavation, Grading, and Fill, along with HMC Chapter 10, Article 8 (Grading and Clearing). Compliance with these requirements would ensure that substantial erosion would during construction would not occur. Following construction, the majority of the project site would be developed with structures and landscaping, and areas of exposed soils would be minimal.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project (City of Hayward 2014c). As analyzed in the General Plan EIR, compliance with General Plan Policies, the California Building Code, and associated seismic provisions for this region of California would reduce impacts related to unstable soils to less than significant levels. Additionally, the project site is in a generally flat area where landslides are unlikely and not in an area with high or very high liquefaction potential (City of Hayward 2014b; Quantum Geotechnical, Inc 2022). According to the Geotechnical Report prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc on August 8, 2022 (Appendix D), the project site is underlain by a thick predominantly non- liquefiable cover which would reduce the potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading to occur at the site. This impact would be less than significant.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

48 d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The General Plan EIR analyzes the potential for expansive soils to create risks to life and property and finds this impact to be less than significant with incorporation of General Plan policies to reduce impacts. According to the Geotechnical Report prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc on August 8, 2022 (Appendix D), the project site is on near surface soils that have high expansion potential when subject to fluctuations in moisture. The report recommends that the foundations and slabs underlying the proposed buildings should be designed for such a condition. In addition, Quantum Geotechnical, Inc recommended that grading be performed during dry months to reduce the potential for excessive moisture and therefore reduce the potential for expansive soils.

The project would be required to comply with the California Building Code, HMC, and applicable General Plan Policies, including Policy HAZ-2.1 and Policy HAZ-2.2, that feature requirements to evaluate geologic, seismic, and soil-related conditions and risks for new construction on sites in geologic hazard zones, and to design structures and buildings pursuant to applicable standards and codes.

Adherence to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval below, which requires implementation of the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant related to geologic hazards, would reduce impacts related to expansive soils. With implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval outlined below, impacts related to expansive soils would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

TANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The following control measures for geologic hazards shall be adhered to, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer. Per standard City project approval procedures, the City must review final project design plans for conformity with building code requirements prior to project construction. All earthwork, including site grading, wall foundation excavations, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and final surface drainage installation, would be performed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report, as applicable.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
 NO IMPACT
The City’s comprehensive, integrated wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal municipal sanitary sewer system serves the project site. Implementation of the project would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 49 Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.

Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Following the literature review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the project site. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units.

The project site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Coast Ranges extend along the majority of California’s coast from the California-Oregon border to Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County in the south and consist of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The Coast Ranges are composed of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic strata.

The eastern side is characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in the Upper Mesozoic strata. The Coast Ranges province runs parallel to and overlaps the San Andreas Fault in some areas (California Geological Survey 2002). Locally, the project site is within the East Bay Plain which lies between San Francisco Bay and the Diablo Range.

The project is located in the Hayward United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. The geology of the region surrounding the project site was mapped by Graymer (2000), who identified a single geologic unit, Holocene floodplain deposits, underlying the project site.

Holocene floodplain deposits consist of gray, sandy or silty clay that may contain lenses of silt, sand, or gravel (Graymer 2000). The geotechnical investigation conducted for this project performed three test borings within the project site (Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2022). These borings encountered silty clay from the surface to a depth of 23 feet, matching the description of Graymer (2000) for Holocene floodplain deposits. Holocene sediments are generally too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources (SVP 2010). Therefore, Holocene floodplain deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

Holocene floodplain deposits likely become old enough (i.e., 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources in the subsurface. Early Holocene- and Pleistocene-aged alluvial sediments have produces significant paleontological resources throughout the East Bay Plain, City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

50 including mammoth (Mammuthus), horse (Equus), bison (Bison), ground sloth (Paramylodon), rodents, and invertebrates (Jefferson 2010; University of California Museum of Paleontology 2023).

Therefore, alluvial sediments older than 5,000 years have high paleontological sensitivity. Sneed et al. (2015) dated core samples from borings conducted near the mouth of San Lorenzo Creek, approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the project site. Their results indicate an average sedimentation rate of 1.40 feet per 1,000 years for the past 125,000 years, which would suggest that the transition to high-sensitivity (i.e., 5,000-year-old) sediments occurs 7.0 feet below the surface. Therefore, within the project site, sediments 7 feet or less below the surface have low paleontological sensitivity, and sediments greater than 7 feet below the surface have high paleontological sensitivity.

Ground disturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources or associated stratigraphic data. Ground-disturbing activities for this project include surficial grading to form level building pads, trenching for storm drains and sewers, and excavation of three bioretention basins. The overall grade of the project site will remain largely unchanged, so grading will likely only impact surficial sediments, which, due to previous development on the project site, are likely disturbed. Trenching for storm drains and sewers is expected to reach approximately 8 feet below the surface, respectively. Of the anticipated excavations, only trenching for the sewers is anticipated to have the potential to impact high- sensitivity sediments (i.e., sediments deeper than 7 feet), if they are present. The 7-foot transition depth to high-sensitivity sediments is an estimate based on data taken from outside of the project site. Therefore, this transition depth could be shallower (or deeper) within the project site, meaning that it is possible that other excavations could impact high-sensitivity sediments as well. The project may significantly impact paleontological resources. However, incorporation of the following City of Hayward Standard Condition of Approval to account for the unanticipated discovery of paleontological or prehistoric resources, impacts would be mitigated substantially by uniformly applicable development policies.

Standardized procedure for evaluation accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.f and 151236.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to geology and soils, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 51 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with any applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes GHG emissions on pages 10-1 through 10-42 and concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project’s proposed construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) would generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod version 2022.1 was used to calculate emissions resulting from project construction and long-term operation (see Appendix A for GHG model output).

The General Plan EIR used the BAAQMD GHG efficiency threshold in place at that time of 6.6 MT CO
2e per service population per year and found that impacts would be less than significant.

However, to take into account the new State goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and the project buildout year of 2025, the BAAQMD GHG threshold was interpolated to an adjusted 2025 threshold City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

52 of 4.3 MTCO2e per service population per year.3 Therefore, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be significant if they would exceed the 2025 interpolated threshold of 4.3 MTCO2e per service population per year, consistent with EO B-55-18.

Construction Emissions
Emissions generated by construction of the proposed project are estimated to be 183 MT of CO2e.

However, as the BAAQMD does not have a recommended threshold for construction-related GHG emissions, emissions associated with construction are not included in Table 4 and compared to BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions
Long-term emissions relate to mobile sources, area sources, energy use, water use, solid waste, and refrigerants. Each of the operational sources of emissions is discussed further below and summarized in Table 4.

Mobile Source Emissions
As calculated by CalEEMod, the proposed project would generate an estimated 302,100 VMT per year. The proposed project would emit an estimated 108 MT of CO2e per year from mobile sources.

Area Source Emissions
CalEEMod was used to calculate direct sources of air emissions associated with the proposed project. These include consumer product use and landscape maintenance equipment. Area emissions are estimated at less than 1 MT of CO
2e per year.

Energy Use Emissions
Operation of the project would consume electricity. Pursuant to the City’s Reach Code, single-family residences would be required to include an all-electric design. Therefore, natural gas was converted to electricity in the model to account for the all-electric design. The proposed project would generate approximately 22 MT of CO2e per year associated with overall energy use.

Water Use Emissions
Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey water for the project, the proposed project would generate 1 MT of CO
2e per year.

Solid Waste Emissions
Based on the estimate of GHG emissions from project-generated solid waste as it decomposes, solid waste associated with the proposed project would generate approximately 3 MT of CO2e per year.

Refrigerant Emissions
The proposed project would generate less than 1 MT of CO2e per year of refrigerant emissions.

3 6.6 MTCO2e (General Plan EIR threshold in 2014) / 31 years (2014 to 2045 for carbon neutrality) = 0.21 MTCO2e. To find the 2025 interpolated threshold, 6.6 MTCO2e – (0.21*11) MTCO2e = 4.29 MTCO2e.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 53 Total Annual Emissions
As shown in Table 4, the project’s annual emissions would total approximately 134 MT of CO2e per year, or approximately 3.0 MT of CO2e per service population per year. Therefore, emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD interpolated threshold of 4.3 MT of CO2e per service population per year as adjusted for EO B-55-18 targets. Since GHG emissions would not exceed the interpolated BAAQMD threshold, and the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR, the project would not generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions and would not conflict with SB 32 or EO B-55-18. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 4 Estimated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e/year)
Mobile 108
Area <1
Energy 22
Water 1
Solid Waste 3
Refrigerants <1
Total 134
Proposed Project Population 44
Proposed Project GHG Emissions per Service Population 3.0 BAAQMD Interpolated Threshold (adjusted for EO B-55-18) 4.3 Exceeds Threshold? No
See Table 2.2 “Overall Operational” emissions. CalEEMod worksheets for GHG in Appendix A. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR includes a discussion of the City-adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) of 2009
that brought the City into compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375 and statewide GHG reduction goals.

The CAP was adopted in response to state mandates and regional guidance on reducing GHG emissions (City of Hayward 2014b). As a part of the update process for the 2040 General Plan, the City re-evaluated the GHG reduction estimates assigned to individual actions in the 2009 CAP. This analysis resulted in the development of new and modified actions that were incorporated into the 2040 General Plan and its overall policy framework. This integrated approach allows the 2040 General Plan to be recognized as a “Plan for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” and as a “Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy” by BAAQMD (City of Hayward 2014b). Although the CAP was adopted in 2009, it established targets using the Executive Order S-3-05 emissions trajectory and aligns with SB 32 and the 2022 Scoping Plan. The CAP included a 2005 emissions inventory that estimated the total GHG emissions in Hayward at approximately 1,183,279 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalence (CO
2e) in 2005. Implementation of the CAP would result in
a citywide emissions reduction target of 12.5 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and 82.5 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 (City of Hayward 2014a). As stated in the General Plan EIR, forecasted GHG emissions for the City of Hayward in 2050 without mitigation is 1,670,080 MT of City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

54 CO2e. With implementation of the CAP, there is projected to be a reduction of 1,152,398 MT CO2e emissions for 2050, which results in an 82.5 percent reduction below the 2005 baseline and 87.6 percent below “business as usual” projections for 2050.

As concluded in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan contains a comprehensive strategy that achieves a communitywide GHG emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020 and puts the City on course to achieve ongoing GHG emission reductions through the year 2050. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Estimated GHG emissions per service population in for the proposed project would be below the BAAQMD interpolated threshold of 4.3 MT CO2e per service population per year. Thus, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Since the population growth from the proposed project would be within General Plan estimates, implementation of the General Plan, including development of the proposed project, would not result in significant GHG emissions impacts. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous environmental documents would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 55 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within 0.25 mile of an
existing or proposed school?
□ ■ □ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous
material sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
□ ■ □ □ □
e. For a project located in an airport
land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in
the project area?
□ ■ □ □ □
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

56 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
□ □ □ ■ □
g. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires? □ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses hazardous materials impacts on pages 11-1 through 11-24 and finds that impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials use in the city would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Residential uses, such as those proposed by the project, typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials other than minor amounts needed for cleaning or landscaping maintenance.

During grading and construction activities, limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, may be transported to the site, used on site, and disposed of after use. However, the project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that address the handling, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous substances, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. This would eliminate potential significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and State environmental and Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 57 workplace safety laws. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, policies in the General Plan would also further avoid or reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials and hazards related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
There are no existing or proposed K-12 schools within 0.25 miles of the project site. Further, as a residential project, the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of hazardous materials or hazardous waste. As discussed above under criterion a and b, the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with construction activities would be required to adhere to numerous regulatory requirements which would prevent emissions of hazardous substances. As discussed below under criterion d, there is no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination on-site, and therefore release of contaminated soil or groundwater during construction is not anticipated. This impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by B2 Environmental, Inc. on February 17, 2022 (B2 Environmental, Inc 2022; Appendix E). As part of the 2022 Phase I ESA, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to provide a database search of public lists of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or incident has occurred for the project site and surrounding area. Federal, State, and county lists were reviewed as part of the research effort. The project site was not listed on any of the environmental regulatory databases. Therefore, the project site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The EDR records search identified 14 potential contamination or clean-up sites within a mile of the project site and 20 leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) within 0.5 mile of the project site. Of these sites, all were found to be either closed cases (meaning cleanup activities have occurred in accordance with regulatory standards and no further cleanup action is required at this time); cases undergoing post remedial action monitoring; or down-gradient from the project site. Therefore, the Phase I ESA determined that the sites do not pose a risk for the proposed project. Overall, the Phase I ESA concluded that the site contains no evidence of illegal or improper use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials and that no sites in the vicinity of the project site would pose as a significant environmental concern or liability (B2 Environmental, Inc 2022; Appendix E). Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public environment and this impact would be less than significant.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

58 e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The nearest airport, Hayward Executive Airport, is approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site.

Although the project site is located within two miles of the Hayward Executive Airport, the project site is not located within a noise-sensitive area as outlined in Exhibit 1C of the Hayward Executive Airport Master Plan (Hayward Executive Airport 2002a). According to Figure 3-3 of the Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is also not located within the existing noise level contours for the airport (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission 2010). In addition, the Hayward Executive Airport has a noise abatement program in place to assist pilots in operating their aircrafts in the quietest manner possible, and to avoid any unnecessary overflights of residential areas (Hayward Executive Airport 2002b). The City of Hayward has also adopted Ordinance 91-16 which outlines standards for aircraft noise, along with fines and penalties for violating the ordinance (City of Hayward 2012). Therefore, with adherence to the noise abatement program and the City’s Ordinance 91-16, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts would be less than significant. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan EIR, the City must maintain its status as a Certified Unified Program Agency and implement a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan to outline its responsibilities in emergencies and coordinate the response and recovery efforts of city departments, local energy providers, and federal, State, and local agencies. The project would not block access or permanently constrain evacuation routes adopted in an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan.

With the required implementation of the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is in an urbanized area of Hayward, surrounded primarily by paved surfaces and structures. The project site is not intermixed with or adjacent to wildlands. Figure 5-3 of the 2040 General Plan Background Report indicates the project site is in an area of low fire hazard risk (City of Hayward 2014c). No impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental documents. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 59 10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces,
in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
(iii) Create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
□ ■ □ □ □
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

60 Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ ■ □ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
□ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses hydrology and water quality impacts on pages 13-1 through 13-40.

The EIR found that potential impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The General Plan EIR concluded that with compliance with existing regulations, City of Hayward Standard Conditions of Approval, and General Plan policies, impacts related to water quality associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant. The proposed project would modify the site conditions which could affect water quality during construction and operation. However, as explained in the following discussions, there are no project-specific impacts peculiar to the project and since the project would be within the type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the project would be less than significant.

Construction Impacts
During grading activities, the site’s soils would be exposed to wind and water erosion that could transport sediments into local stormwater drainages. Furthermore, accidental spills of fluids or fuels Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 61 from construction vehicles and equipment, or miscellaneous construction materials and debris, could be mobilized and transported off-site in overland flow. These contaminant sources could degrade the water quality of receiving water bodies (i.e., San Francisco Bay), potentially resulting in a violation of water quality standards.

As part of Section 402 of the CWA, the U.S. EPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control both construction and operation (occupancy) stormwater discharges. The Federal CWA was first adopted in 1972 and is intended to protect and preserve water supply and quality in the “waters of the nation.” In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. According to General Plan Policy NR-6.8 (NPDES Permit Compliance), the City must continue to comply with the NPDES program. The project would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), NPDES Permit Order No. R2-2015-0049, and the provisions set forth in Section C.3 New Development and Redevelopment. In addition, because the project would disturb more than one acre of land, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ or 2009-0009-DWQ General Permit).

The proposed project would also be subject to HMC Chapter 10, Article 8 (Grading and Clearing), which requires all construction projects in the city to conduct grading activities in a manner that will minimize the potential for erosion from the site. Furthermore, Article 8 states that if requested by the City Engineer, the project applicant would be required to prepare and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that specifies control techniques that would prevent erosion during construction. Therefore, with compliance with City construction-related water quality and erosion control requirements, construction of the project would not violate water quality standards, substantially alter the drainage pattern of the area such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur and would not degrade water quality. Impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The project site is currently developed with two single-family residences and accessory buildings.

The project would increase the total area of impervious surfaces on the project site by approximately 25,522 square feet, from 11,971 square feet to 37,493 square feet. Increasing the total area of impervious surfaces could increase stormwater runoff which could result in a greater potential to introduce pollutants to receiving waters. Urban runoff could carry a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, metals, sediment, and pesticide residues from roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and landscaped areas and deposit them into adjacent waterways via the storm drain system.

Stormwater discharge during operation is regulated by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, issued by the RWQCB, pursuant to NPDES regulations. Water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which includes the C.3 provisions set by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Provision C.3 of the MRP addresses post- construction stormwater requirements for new development and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Because the project would replace in excess of 10,000 square feet of the impervious surface of the project site, it must comply with the C.3 provisions set by the RWQCB. Therefore, the project must meet certain criteria including 1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into the project City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

62 design; 2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and 3) minimize increases in runoff flows as compared to pre-development conditions. A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) that details the site control, source control, and stormwater measures that would be implemented at the site must be submitted to the City. In addition, Low Impact Development (LID) requirements apply. The Alameda County Clean Water Program’s C.3 Technical Guidance document (2016) provides guidance on how to meet the C.3 requirements.

Pursuant to C.3 requirements, the project would be required to include design features that would reduce impacts associated with the increased impervious surfaces. The proposed project would direct roof runoff and runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. The proposed project would also include three bioretention areas, two along the eastern border of the site (bioretention areas A and B) and one on the southern border of the site in between Lots 11 and 12 (bioretention area C). Bioretention area A would include 380 square feet of treatment area; bioretention area B would include 520 square feet of treatment area; and bioretention area C would include 235 square feet of treatment area. The proposed project would include 25,700 square feet of permeable area which would help meet stormwater requirements to reduce pollutants and surface runoff. By adhering to the provisions of NPDES Section C.3, and the stormwater control plan, the project would not result in adverse effects on water quality and or in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction or operation. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on water quality. With implementation of the measures contained in these plans, excessive stormwater runoff, erosion, and sedimentation would not occur and the potential for the project to violate water quality standards and substantially degrade water quality would be reduced. This impact would be less than significant. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan policies would ensure that future development would not deplete groundwater supplies substantially. As stated in the 2040 General Plan Background Report (City of Hayward 2014c), the City of Hayward stopped using groundwater to supply water to the city in 1963, except in cases of emergency. The project would not rely on groundwater. Development under the project would not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing wells. Although the project may increase impervious surfaces on the site, development of the project site was anticipated under the General Plan and would not use water or prevent recharge at a rate beyond that anticipated in the General Plan.

Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously identified in the prior environmental document.
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 63 c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The closest water resource is the Hayward Landing Canal, a channelized watercourse that runs parallel to West Street and does not flow through the site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2023). The Hayward Landing Canal provides stormwater drainage in the project vicinity. Between Mohr Drive and Eden Avenue the canal is underground. The nearest day lighted segment is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the project site near southwest corner of Eden Avenue and West Street. Project construction would not alter the course of this watercourse or other stream or river since no other surface water features are identified in the project vicinity. The project site connects to an existing stormwater drainage system located in the County of Alameda’s Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Zone 4. Stormwater runoff in the project area currently flows through existing city stormwater drains to the Hayward Landing Canal and eventually to the San Francisco Bay (Alameda County Flood Control District 2023).

The project would increase the site’s impervious surface area, thereby increasing the potential for offsite runoff. This increased runoff could result in on- or offsite erosion or siltation. However, pursuant to the Alameda County Municipal Regional Stormwater Discharge Permit, the project would be required to implement Low Impact Development techniques to reduce the potential for on or offsite erosion or siltation.

Increased stormwater from the project site would enter the city’s existing stormwater conveyance system. While the project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site by increasing impervious surfaces, as noted in criteria a. and e. above, it would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP which requires new developments disturbing more than 10,000 square feet 1) incorporate site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into the project design; 2) minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge; and 3) minimize increases in runoff flows as compared to pre-development conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure or otherwise substantially alter the course of the Ward Creek or other water features. Impacts would be less than significant. c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area (1 percent chance annually); the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2009). In addition, the project site is not located within proximity to a dam failure inundation area and would not expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss involving flooding as a result of dam failure.

Furthermore, compliance with federal, State, and local policies such as FEMA National Flood Insurance Program; California Water Code; the HMC; Floodplain Management Ordinance; the City of Hayward Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and the 2040 General Plan policies would ensure impacts be reduced to a less than significant level.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

64 d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area, nor is there a water body near the project site capable of seiche. The nearest large body of water to the project is the San Francisco Bay, which is approximately 2.3 miles west of the project site. Based on the topography of the project site and its surroundings, there would be no risk of mudflow on the site. There would be no impact.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of Hayward is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan for achieving water quality objectives (California Water Board 2017). The proposed project would not interfere with the objectives and goals in the Basin Plan. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to hydrology and water quality, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 65 11 Land Use and Planning

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ ■ □ □
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
□ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR addresses land use and planning on pages 14-1 through 14-42. Impacts to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant in the document.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?  NO IMPACT
The project would be infill development on developed land and would not result in new obstructions or divisions between established communities. The project would be limited to the project site and would not include linear or other features that could impede access between or within neighborhoods. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project site is designated as Limited Medium Density Residential (LMDR) in the Hayward 2040 General Plan (City of Hayward 2014a). The City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan Land Use and City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

66 Community Character Element defines the LMDR category as “Suburban areas that contain a mix of housing types… Allowed uses include detached single-family homes, attached single-family homes, multi-family homes. Development Density within the Limited Medium Density Residential category is 8.7 – 12.0 dwelling units per acre.” The proposed project would have a density of 9.8 dwelling units per acre, which would not exceed the maximum allowed density in the LDMR land use category of 12.0 dwelling units per acre. (Note: the seven JADUs do not count as dwelling units under the HMC because they do not meet the definition of a dwelling unit as they do not provide full kitchens with ranges. Therefore, JADUs do not count towards the density). The project would be consistent with the LMDR designation, and would be within the type of use and density analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Parcel 1 located at 24656 Mohr Drive is currently zoned RMB3.5. The RM zoning district regulations are intended to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life in areas where a compatible mingling of single-family and multiple-family dwellings is possible” (Hayward Municipal Code [HMC] Section 10-1.405). Parcel 2 located at 24764 Mohr Drive is currently zoned RSB4. The RS zoning district regulations are intended to “promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life… The RS district is to be used only for single-family homes and the community services appurtenant thereto” (HMC Section 10-1.205). The proposed project would involve a zone change from RMB3.5 and RSB4 to PD. The purpose of the PD zone is to:
 Encourage development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation, which through efficient and attractive space utilization emphasizes conservation, open space, and recreational amenities, and which is harmonious with the natural characteristics of the land, including topography, ponds, rock outcroppings, significant tree clusters, and ridge tops.  Establish development procedures and standards whereby such lands may be developed most appropriately to maintain and enhance the natural and man-made advantages of such sites.  Foster well designed residential and nonresidential development, encouraging projects incorporating a variety of housing types or combinations of residential and nonresidential uses by allowing diversification in the relationship of uses, buildings, architectural design, lot sizes, yard areas, and open spaces which may not be achievable under other zoning districts.  Carry out the policies and objectives of the General Plan, Design Review Guidelines, the Hillside Design Guidelines, and the Landscape Beautification Plan and to meet the standards necessary to satisfy the requirement for public health, safety, and general welfare (HMC Section 10-

1.2505).

Therefore, the
project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, and impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 67 Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to land use and planning, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

68 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 69 12 Mineral Resources

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
□ □ ■ □ □
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes mineral resources, along with geology and soils on page 9-1 to 9-18 and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?  NO IMPACT
The project site is not zoned or designated for mining uses and no active mining operations are in the project site or vicinity. The project site is not classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents of the state and the region, nor would it result in loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site (USGS 2023).The project site is an infill site and does not involve developing currently undeveloped land with the potential to contain valuable mineral resources. There would be no impact.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

70 Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to mineral resources, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Noise

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 71 13 Noise

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:

a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
□ □ □ □ ■
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes noise on pages 15-1 through 15-32. Impacts due to construction- related ground vibration, railroad generated noise, and noise generated from stationary sources are found to be less than significant. Impacts related to short-term construction noise and long-term operational noise are found to be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed under Impact 15-1 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan Goal HAZ-8 (minimize human exposure to excessive noise) and Policies HAZ-8.17 (Community Noise Control Ordinance), HAZ-8.20 (Construction Noise Study), and HAZ-8.21 (Construction and Maintenance Noise Limits) establish the overall goal and intentions of the City with regards to construction-related noise.

Policy HAZ-8.17 refers to a community noise control ordinance for the purposes of regulating community noise levels. The City has adopted Section 4-1.03.4 of the Municipal Code (Construction and Alteration of Structures; Landscaping Activities), which states that individual devices/pieces of construction equipment are not to exceed 83 dB at a distance of 25 feet from the source and 86 dB at any point of the property plane Monday through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and Sundays from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, “unless otherwise provided pursuant to a duly-issued permit or a City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

72 condition of approval.” Thus, while the code establishes specific standards to reduce construction noise from typical construction activities, these standards may not apply to all development projects requiring discretionary approval.

Furthermore, the General Plan EIR analyzes vibration related impacts and the implementation of Policies HAZ-8.22 (Vibration Impact Assessment) and HAZ-8.23 (Transportation Vibration) would require a project-level noise and vibration study to determine vibration-related impacts on humans.

Policy HAZ-8.22 would require construction activities using heavy-duty construction equipment within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor to conduct a vibration impact assessment. Policy HAZ-8.23 would require all new development located in proximity to major vibration sources (e.g., railroads, freeways, BART lines) to conduct a ground vibration and vibration noise evaluation consistent with City approved methodologies. Therefore, conducting project-level vibration studies would ensure individuals and structures are not exposed to excessive vibration levels.

As discussed under Impact 15-2 of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the policies included in the Hazards Element, such as Policy HAZ-8.2 (Noise Study and Mitigation) and Policy HAZ-8.5 (Residential Noise Standards), require new projects to evaluate noise exposure and provide mitigation measures, if applicable, to reduce noise exposure at sensitive land uses and meet noise standards for the specific project type. Therefore, conducting project-level noise studies to comply with adopted noise standards would ensure that individuals are not exposed to excessive noise levels.

Although adoption of General Plan policies would ensure that new development would comply with adopted noise standards and therefore would not expose new receptors to excessive noise levels, the General Plan would still result in increases in traffic-related noise (i.e., increases of 3 or more dB and up to 15 dB in some areas of the city). As a result, project-generated increases in noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in community noise levels that could adversely affect existing receptors.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in a previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Construction Impacts
Project construction activities on-site and traffic noise from construction vehicles would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. Nearby noise-sensitive land uses, including the single-family and multi-family residences adjacent to the project site, would be exposed to temporary construction noise during development of the project. Noise impacts are a function of the type of activity being Environmental Checklist
Noise

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 73 undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Table 5 estimates construction noise at a reference distance of 50 feet from the source equipment. Although there are residences adjacent to the northern and southern project site boundary, over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would move around the site and therefore a 50 foot distance is a conservative average to estimate noise levels.

Table 5 Estimated Construction Noise
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA Leq) 50 ft from Source* Air Compressor 81
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane Derrick 88
Crane Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 81
Grader 85
Impact Wrench 85
Jack Hammer 88
Loader 85
Paver 89
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Rail Saw 90
Roller 74
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 89
Shovel 82
Truck 88
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2018, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Table 9.9 As shown in Table 5, construction noise could reach as high as an estimated 90 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors during construction. Such levels would exceed ambient noise and would be audible on adjacent properties, including residences adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the project site. However, Section 4-1.03.4 of the HMC limits the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays); therefore, construction impacts would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. The HMC also imposes noise limit requirements stating that no individual piece of equipment may produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from source, and that no activities may produce a City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

74 noise level in excess of 86 dBA outside project property lines. Additionally, construction noise would be typical of normal construction in urban areas, and of the type of use and location considered in the General Plan EIR for development citywide, and would not use techniques or equipment that generate unusually high levels of noise or vibration such as pile driving. Adherence to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval related to construction noise would further reduce construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors and compliance with this uniformly applicable development policy would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project would have no impacts beyond those identified in previous environmental documents.

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
The following control measures for construction noise, grading and construction activities shall be adhered to, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director or City Engineer:
a) In conformance with Section 4-1.03-4 of the City’s Municipal Code, construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday or between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays or holidays, unless other construction hours are permitted by the City Engineer or Chief Building Official, shall not include any individual equipment that produces a noise level exceeding 83 dB measured at 25 feet, nor shall activities produce a noise level outside the project property lines in excess of 86 dB. During all other hours, noise shall not exceed the limits defined in Municipal Code Section 4-1.03.1 (70 dB daytime or 60 dB nighttime, measured at residential property lines).
b) Grading and construction equipment shall be properly muffled; c) Unnecessary idling of grading and construction equipment is prohibited; d) Stationary noise-generating construction equipment, such as compressors, shall be located as far as practical from occupied residential housing units; e) Applicant/developer shall designate a "noise disturbance coordinator" who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. f) Letters shall be mailed to surrounding property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project boundary with this information.
g) The developer shall post the property with signs that shall indicate the names and phone number of individuals who may be contacted, including those of staff at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, when occupants of adjacent residences find that construction is creating excessive dust or odors, or is otherwise objectionable. Letters shall also be mailed to surrounding property owners and residents with this information prior to commencement of construction.

Operational Impacts
Operation of the project would generate noise typical of single-family residential development and would be consistent with nearby residential and institutional land uses and of the type of use and location considered in the General Plan EIR for development citywide. Mechanical equipment on the project site and noise associated with the common open space with play equipment (such as conversations) as well as vehicle trips associated with the new residences could increase the ambient noise levels. However, the project involves residential development on a site designated for residential uses and noise levels would be typical of residential uses with outdoor yards and consistent with surrounding development. Noise associated with project operation would primarily result from new motor vehicle trips to and from the project site. As analyzed in Section 16, Transportation, the proposed project would not generate traffic volumes in excess of that assumed Environmental Checklist
Noise

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 75 for the project site in the General Plan EIR, and therefore, traffic noise would be at or below levels assumed in the EIR for the General Plan buildout year of 2040. The General Plan EIR found that changes in traffic patterns may create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. However, General Plan Policies HAZ-8.2, HAZ-8.5, HAZ- 8.11, HAZ-8.12, HAZ-8.17, and HAZ-8.23 call for actions aimed at reducing impacts from traffic noise, such as enforcing maximum acceptable interior and exterior noise levels for multi-family residences. Therefore, the project would not have an impact beyond that analyzed previously.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Construction of the project would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project site. The project would be a typical construction project as analyzed in the Hayward General Plan EIR. Heavy vibration-generating construction equipment could include bulldozers and loaded trucks.

The distance to the nearest sensitive receptors from the project’s construction equipment when accounting for setbacks, the single-family residences located adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the project site, is estimated at 25 feet.

Table 6 identifies vibration velocity levels at a distance of 25 feet from the source.

Table 6 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment Estimated VdB at 25 feet PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Large bulldozer 87 0.089
Loaded trucks 86 0.076
Jack hammer 79 0.035
Small bulldozer 58 0.003
Source: FTA 2018
As shown in Table 6, noise-sensitive receptors would experience the strongest vibration of up to 87 VdB or 0.089 in/sec PPV with the use of large bulldozers, which would not exceed the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV for damage to nearby sensitive structures. Furthermore, a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV would not exceed the Caltrans distinctly perceptible vibration threshold of 0.24 in/sec PPV (Caltrans 2020). In addition, construction activities generating loud noises and vibration would also be limited to 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Sundays pursuant to HMC 4-1.03.4, which would prevent the exposure of sensitive receivers to vibration during evening and nighttime hours. Moreover, project construction would be typical of urban projects in Hayward as envisioned in the General Plan EIR analysis. Impacts would be less than significant. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The nearest airport, Hayward Executive Airport, is approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site.

The project site is located within the Hayward Executive Airport Influence Area. However, according City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

76 to Figure 3-3 of the Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is not located within the existing noise level contours for the airport (Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission 2010). Therefore, the project would not subject construction workers or residents at the site to excessive noise and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With Standard Conditions of Approval incorporated, the project would not have peculiar or substantial noise impacts, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 77 14 Population and Housing

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:

a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial amounts of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □ ■ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR discusses population and housing on pages 16-1 through 16-7. The General Plan EIR accounts for a population of 265,962 people at full buildout of the Hayward Planning Area and finds that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The project would involve the construction of 12 single-family residences as well as seven JADUs on an infill site, consistent with the goals of the General Plan regarding efficient urban growth. The project would directly generate population growth. Based on the City of Hayward’s average household size of 3.03 persons per household (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2023) and assuming one person per JADU, the project would add an estimated 44 new residents to the city (12 City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

78 units x 3.03 persons per unit + 7 persons). The project would increase the population of Hayward from 159,800 to 159,844 people, an increase that falls within the residential buildout analyzed in the General Plan EIR of 208,047. Accordingly, it would not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly because the project would be part of planned growth in the region and within the growth projection analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Population growth related to the project would be less than significant and would not be more than that analyzed in previous environmental documents.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
“Substantial” displacement would occur if the proposed project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth facilitated by the project. The goal of the proposed project is to accommodate and encourage new residential development in Hayward. The project site is currently developed with two single-family residences and associated accessory buildings. The proposed project would not result in substantial displacement since it would include the construction of 12 single-family residences, 10 more than what currently exists on the project site.

Additionally, the two single-family residences on site are currently vacant. If they were occupied, pursuant to HMC sections 7-3.12 and 7-3.13, every displaced person is entitled to compensation and benefits, as well as relocation advisory assistance. Therefore, construction and development of the site would not displace substantial numbers of people or residences, and impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would not involve development in areas not analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR, nor would it result in impacts to population and housing not covered in the General Plan EIR. The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts concerning population and housing, nor would there be any potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact that discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 79 15 Public Services

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
a. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
or the need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:

1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ ■ □ □ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes public services on pages 17-1 through 17-42 and concludes that impacts regarding public services would be less than significant.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

80 Project-Specific Impacts
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The General Plan EIR evaluates fire and police protection demand impacts and finds them to be less than significant with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, including required enforcement of fire and building codes, and implementation of defensible space and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design concepts. The project involves infill residential development as envisioned in the General Plan, in an area currently served by police and fire protection services; it would not result in the need for new or expanded fire or police protection facilities and there would be no impact.
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
While new development, including the proposed project, would increase the demand for new school facilities, the General Plan EIR analyzes this issue and finds impacts to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies. Hayward Unified School District (HUSD) provides public school services in Hayward. The school district has experienced a substantial decline in its student population, which is expected to continue. While the General Plan Area covers an area that is served by other public schools, the project site only occurs within the HUSD area. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees that would be used by the local school district to mitigate impact associated with long-term operation and maintenance of school facilities. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of these fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization.” The project would therefore have a less than significant impact that would not be greater than that analyzed in the previous environmental documents.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 81 a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Please refer to Section 15, Recreation.
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The proposed project does not include and would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities. Population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units included in the project would generate additional demand for library and other public services, but this growth would be consistent with and accounted for in the General Plan. Impacts of the project would not be greater than those analyzed previously.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to public services, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

82 This page left intentionally blank.

Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 83 16 Recreation

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development Policies
a. Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
□ ■ □ □ □
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
□ ■ □ □ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes recreation on pages 17-1 through 17-42, in the Public Services section, and identifies a less than significant impact to recreation.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project includes residential development that would increase population within Hayward. The additional population would increase the use of existing parks and other recreational facilities.

There are two existing parks within the project vicinity: Greenwood Park, located approximately 0.2 miles north; and Rancho Arroyo Park, located approximately 0.3 miles southeast. Additionally, the project includes on-site amenities including private open space and shared outdoor open space in the form of a turf block with precast concrete corn hole game, and a small park area with percussion play equipment, a picnic table, a 6-foot bench, and a tic tac toe playboard. Moreover, as described City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

84 above under Section 14, Population and Housing, the estimated number of new residents would be consistent with General Plan estimates. Pursuant to HMC Section 10-16.20, the project applicant would be required to pay a development related park impact fee that would be used to cover the cost of new facilities and maintenance of existing facilities. This in lieu fee would ensure adequate parks and recreational facilities would be maintained with the proposed increase in population.

Therefore, the increased use resulting from the project would not lead to a substantial physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The project would include development of shared outdoor open space in the form of a turf block with precast concrete corn hole game, and a small park area with percussion play equipment, a picnic table, a 6-foot bench, and a tic tac toe playboard north of Lot 12 for use by future residents only. The impacts associated with provision of this recreational space for on-site residents are analyzed throughout this report as part of overall project construction and operation. As determined in this document, the provision of these amenities would not result in an adverse effect on the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to recreation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Traffic

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 85 17 Transportation and Traffic

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:

a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
□ ■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm
equipment)?
□ ■ □ □ □
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?
□ □ □ ■ □
Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR evaluates transportation impacts on pages 18-1 through 18-44. According to the EIR, impacts to traffic volumes as a result of General Plan implementation would result in an exceedance of the City standard for intersection performance and would potentially constitute a “considerable” contribution to the significant cumulative impact at city intersections. The General Plan EIR proposed several mitigation measures to improve the various intersections operating at a substandard level-of-service (LOS), although these intersections do not include those affected by the project. Impacts to Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) and Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways are found to be less than significant. Impacts relating to increased pedestrian activity and facilities, bicycle use and facilities, transit ridership and service are found to be less than significant. Additionally, impacts relating to air traffic patterns, transportation network design feature hazards, and emergency access are found to be less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

86 now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
As stated in the General Plan EIR, new development would increase bicycle and pedestrian trips on the existing streets, trails, paths, and sidewalks, including during peak commute hours. General Plan policies and programs encourage and support alternative modes and the development of facilities to accommodate alternative modes of transportation. The project would involve infill development and would not directly impact transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. The project would include new sidewalk curbs, pavement replacement, and sidewalk improvements. The project site would be located within 0.5 mile of AC Transit bus routes 60 and 97 on Hesperian Boulevard. Class III bicycle routes are present on Eden Avenue and Clawiter Road in the vicinity of the site (City of Hayward 2020a). As the project is of the same type analyzed in the General Plan for the project site, and there are no site-specific issues with the performance and safety of transit, bicycle, or pedestrian infrastructure, the project would introduce no new or more severe impacts related to conflicts with public transit and active transportation modes or their safety than were analyzed previously. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Pursuant to SB 743, the City of Hayward has adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric to analyze transportation impacts instead of the previously used level of service (LOS).

According to the City of Hayward Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that involve the construction of 15 single-family residences or fewer would satisfy the City’s VMT screening criteria and do not require a detailed transportation analysis (City of Hayward 2020b). The proposed project involves 12 single-family residences; therefore, the project would be below the City’s VMT screening criteria and VMT impacts are presumed to be less than significant. (Note: Per the HMC, the seven JADUs do not count as dwelling units because they are attached to the single-family residences and do not include full kitchens with ranges). Furthermore, the project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program. The project would be in a location that allows for usage of alternative modes of transportation and would result in less than significant impacts to VMT.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?  LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The only new roadway planned for the project would be a private street within the project site boundaries in order to provide internal circulation for the site. The new roadway would not create new hazards due to a design feature and the project would not involve uses that generate use of incompatible vehicles such as farm equipment. The City’s Traffic Engineer would review project driveways and internal circulation to ensure design for safe operation. Chapter 10, Article 4 of the HMC includes specific site planning and project design standards intended to address such issues as Environmental Checklist
Transportation and Traffic

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 87 street design with reference to public safety and compatible use. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
The Hayward Precise Plan Lines for Streets (Chapter 10, Article 4 of the HMC) includes site-specific planning and project design standards intended to address such issues as emergency access. As stated in the General Plan EIR, projects under the General Plan buildout are required to comply with zoning requirements and the HMC. In addition, the Hayward Police Department and Hayward Fire Department would review individual development proposals to ensure that emergency access needs are met. The proposed private street drive aisle was designed to accommodate fire access and waste trucks and would not obstruct emergency access. Compliance with Section 10-4.01 of the HMC would ensure accessibility to the project site is maintained. The project would not impair implementation of an emergency plan or physically interfere with an emergency access, nor would it result in the blockage of access routes or evacuation routes adopted within an emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impacts beyond those previously analyzed and identified in the prior environmental document.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to transportation, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

88 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 89 18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
□ □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Cod Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
□ □ □ □ ■
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

90 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?  SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The City of Hayward mailed notification letters to the following tribes on July 20, 2023:
 Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
 Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
 Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
 Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
 Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
 North Valley Yokuts Tribe
 The Ohlone Indian Tribe
 Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
Correspondence related to AB 52 is included in Appendix F. Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days from receipt of the letter to respond and request consultation. To date, none of the tribes have responded requesting formal consultation. Although no tribal cultural resources are expected to be present on-site, there is the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface tribal cultural resources. The proposed excavation of the project site could potentially result in adverse effects on unanticipated tribal cultural resources. However, impacts from the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources during construction would be less than significant with adherence to the following City of Hayward Standard Condition of Approval. With implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval outlined below, impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 91

STANDARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
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 archaeologist 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 under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to tribal cultural resources, nor are there potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

92 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 93 19 Utilities and Service Systems

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
□ □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
□ □ □ ■ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
□ □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
□ □ □ ■ □
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

94 Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts on utilities and service systems on pages 19-1 through 19-34.

This discussion addresses the issues of water supply and delivery, wastewater collection and treatment, and solid waste disposal, recycling, and composting. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts to all utilities and service systems as less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Water
The City of Hayward owns and operates its own water distribution system and purchases all of its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). In the case of emergency or disruption of water delivery from the SFPUC, water supplies are available through the Alameda County Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District. With new development in the city, the General Plan EIR finds that water demand will increase from 19,537 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2010 to 37,390 AFY year by 2035 (City of Hayward 2014c). According to the City of Hayward 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the city is expected to have adequate water supplies during normal years to meet its projected demands through 2040. Although there remains uncertainty for water supply availability during single and multiple dry years, the City, SFPUC, and Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) have developed strategies and actions to address dry- year supply shortfalls (City of Hayward 2021b). In addition, the City has implemented its 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan in order to address water shortages by incorporating implementation actions to reduce the potential for and impacts of catastrophic service disruptions (City of Hayward 2021c). Furthermore, the General Plan also contains policies and programs to ensure water demand projections and development facilitated under the General Plan would be accommodated.

Additional population facilitated by new residential units constructed under the project are included in and consistent with the population growth forecasts of the General Plan. Therefore, water demand resulting from implementation of the proposed project was evaluated in the prior environmental review documents and it is not anticipated that SFPUC would need new or expanded Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 95 entitlements or facilities to serve the project. With implementation of General Plan policies, sufficient water supplies would be available for the project demand, and the project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents.

Wastewater
The project would connect to the City of Hayward Sanitary District sanitary sewer system. Sanitary sewage from the City’s system is treated at the Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF).

The treatment facility discharges into the San Francisco Bay under a permit with the RWQCB. Since the WPCF is considered a publicly-owned treatment facility, operational discharge flows treated at the WPCF would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the RWQCB. Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements outlined by the RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the project site are treated by the WPCF system would not exceed applicable RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements.

The proposed project would increase population density incrementally in the City of Hayward.

However, population growth facilitated by the proposed residential units would be consistent with General Plan population growth forecasts. The project would not generate growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. The General Plan EIR found that there would be adequate capacity at the WPCF to serve development under the General Plan. Therefore, there is adequate capacity at the WPCF to service the project and no expansion of the WPCF would be required (City of Hayward 2014b).

The General Plan EIR states that General Plan buildout is not anticipated to require significant upgrades to water supply infrastructure. Additionally, the General Plan EIR states that implementation of General Plan would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects.

Projects under the General Plan would not result in an increase of capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment system, which is anticipated to have capacity to serve development under the 2040 General Plan in addition to its existing commitments. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR would occur because of the project.

Stormwater
As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would involve development and grading activities and the development of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the project would comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Adherence to the C.3 requirements would minimize water quality impacts from new development to maintain regional compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit. Provision C.3 includes a LID provision (C.3.c) requires that low-impact development techniques be utilized to employ appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development projects.

As stated in the General Plan, development projects must comply with the requirement to maintain stormwater flows at pre-construction levels, pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit. The General Plan EIR concludes that new development consistent with this policy would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities of expansion of existing facilities whose construction would cause significant environmental effects. As the project involves development of a site with residential uses consistent with the development envisioned for the site under the General Plan, and the project would be required to adhere to City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

96 Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, it would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents.

Gas/Electricity/Telecommunications
Electricity and natural gas service to the city is provided by PG&E. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, and Section 15, Population and Housing, population growth facilitated by the proposed project would be within with General Plan population growth forecasts and the project is consistent with type of use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan EIR. According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s energy supply is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). Further, the proposed project would comply with and exceed Title 24 requirements and the City’s Reach Code requirements regarding the provision of solar PV panels and EV chargers. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts beyond those identified in the prior environmental review documents.
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
 ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Solid waste from the project would be disposed of at the Altamont Landfill. In 2001, Altamont Landfill received County approval to increase capacity to allow the closure date to be extended to 2040. According to the General Plan EIR, the City’s solid waste capacity is sufficient to meet the needs of projected growth until 2040 (City of Hayward 2014b). The General Plan also finds that impacts would be less than significant, as projected population growth under the General Plan is not anticipated to generate significant additional solid waste demand, and the General Plan contains policies to reduce solid waste impacts. Furthermore, the HMC includes development standards relating to solid waste, recycling, and green waste materials storage. Projects under the General Plan buildout would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The project would have no impacts beyond those analyzed previously.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts to utilities and service systems, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 97 20 Wildfire

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
□ □ ■ □ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
□ □ ■ □ □
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
□ □ ■ □ □
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
□ □ ■ □ □
The updated CEQA Appendix G guidelines published in December of 2018 require that environmental analysis include a discussion of the potential wildfire impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on the exposure of people and structures to as well as the exacerbation of wildfire risks.

Analysis in Previous Environmental Documents
The General Plan EIR analyzes impacts related to wildfire on pages 11-1 through 11-24. The General Plan EIR identifies impacts related to wildfire as less than significant.

The following describes applicable analysis in the General Plan EIR and provides a review to determine whether there would be project-specific impacts that 1) are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project is located; 2) were not previously analyzed in previous environmental documents as significant effects; 3) are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

98 impacts that were not previously discussed in the previous environmental documents; and 4) are now determined to have a more severe impact than discussed in the previous environmental documents due to substantial new information.
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
 NO IMPACT
The project site is not within or near State Responsibility Areas (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ). The nearest SRA or land classified as VHFHSZ is east of Garin Regional Park approximately 6.2 miles east of the project site (Cal Fire 2008). The project site is generally flat and surrounded by numerous firebreaks such as roads and urban development.

Therefore, the risk of wildfire on the project site would be low. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
The project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar impacts with regard to wildfire risks, nor would there be potentially significant off-site impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects that were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Further, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information not known at the time of the previous environmental review, have been determined to have a more severe adverse impact than those discussed in the previous environmental documents. Accordingly, no additional review is required.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 99 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
No
Impact
Analyzed
in the
Prior EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applicable
Development
Policies
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, eliminate a
plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
□ □ □ □ ■
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
□ □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
□ □ □ □ ■
Project-Specific Impacts
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR and as discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the Standard Conditions of Approval related to nesting birds, the City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

100
project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, with incorporation of the Standard Conditions of Approval related to the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, including archaeological or paleontological resources. As such, the project would not result in impacts peculiar to the project beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR and subsequent environmental documents.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?  ANALYZED IN THE PRIOR EIR
Required conformance with General Plan policies and standard conditions of approval specified in this document would ensure that potential impacts are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable in the context of impacts associated with other pending and planned development projects. As part of the General Plan EIR, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of infill projects were analyzed. The project involves residential development on a site designated for residential development under the General Plan and other existing and allowable land uses near the project are not significantly different than those studied in the cumulative analysis of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan is a document that establishes a land use scenario and goals, policies, and objectives for development and growth throughout the city, through the year 2040. Thus, the impact analyses in the General Plan EIR effectively constitute cumulative analyses of the approved land uses in the planning boundaries. The project would not result in significant impacts peculiar to the project site, as indicated in sections 1 through 20 above. Nearby development would be required to be consistent with the local planning documents or mitigation would be required to assess the impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project’s consistency with the General Plan and subsequent analysis above in sections 1 through 20 indicate that the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
 SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, noise, and traffic safety. As detailed in the preceding sections, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse impacts related to these issue areas. The project’s effects on regional air quality and transportation/traffic would be less than significant or were analyzed under prior environmental review. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, adherence to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval related to geologic hazards would reduce impacts related to expansive soils. As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, on-site construction and operations would not expose residents or customers to known hazardous materials. The generation of noise and vibration from construction activity, as discussed in Section 12, Noise, would be reduced to a level that is less than significant with adherence to HMC Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 101 Section 4-1.03.4 and the City’s Standard Condition of Approval for construction noise. Therefore, the project would not have substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the development density established by the site’s General Plan land use designation and General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

Accordingly, based on the assessments presented in the environmental checklist, the project does not require additional environmental review as the impacts:

1. Are not peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located

2. Were analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, and specific plan, with which the project is consistent where applicable

3. Are not potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan and specific plan

4. Are not previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR
The majority of impacts would be less than significant or were analyzed previously in the General Plan EIR. Additional impacts would be reduced or mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. Accordingly, implementation of the project complies with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is required.

City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

102

This page left intentionally blank.

References

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 103 References
Bibliography
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Hayward Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
http://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/landuseprojects/documents/Draft_HWD_ALUCP_0915

10.pdf (accessed August 2023)
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2023. Neighborhood Zones. https://acfloodcontrol.org/get-involved/get-involved-neighborhood-zones/ (accessed August 2023)
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2020. MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map. https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35 dfcd086fc8 (accessed August 2023)
BAAQMD. 2017. Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. San Francisco, CA. Adopted April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air- plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed August 2023) ______. 2023. 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed February 2022)
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed August 2023) ______. 2017. Williamson Map.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%2 0Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation %20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed August 2023) California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed August 2023) Cal Fire. 2008. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed August 2023)
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf (accessed August 2023) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Map Panel 06001C0289G Effective August 3, 2009). https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor (accessed August 2023) City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

104
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed August 2023)
Graymer, R.W. 2000. Geologic map and map database of the Oakland metropolitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2342, scale 1:50,000. (accessed August 2023) Hayward, City of. 2012. Ordinance 91-16.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/HWD_Appendix_H_City_of _Hayward,_Ordinance_91-16.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2014a. Hayward 2040 General Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. (accessed August 2023) ______. 2014b. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Hayward 2040 General Plan. State Clearinghouse No. 2013082015. January 30, 2014. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hayward_GPU_Public_Release_DraftEIR_1-30-14.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2014c. Hayward 2040 General Plan Background Report. Public Review Draft. January 2014. https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/HayGPU_PRDBackground_Report_20140131.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2020a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20BPMP_Final%20Plan.pdf (accessed August 2023) ______. 2020b. City of Hayward Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MTCTO11_Hayward-TIAGuidelines_Final.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2021b. City of Hayward 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward_2020%20UWMP_Public%20Release_2021%20July%202. pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2021c. City of Hayward 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%202020%20Water%20Shortage%20Contingency%20Pla n_Final.pdf (accessed August 2023)
______. 2022. 2023 Reach Code. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11- 01_Reach%20Code%20PPT.pdf (accessed August 2023)
Hayward Executive Airport. 2002a. Airport Master Plan. https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AirportMasterPlan.pdf (accessed August 2023) ______. 2002b. Hayward Executive Airport Voluntary Noise Abatement and Operational Procedure Guide. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Aircraft-Guide_22.pdf (accessed August 2023)
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172. (accessed June 2023) References

Environmental Consistency Checklist Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 105 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2022. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at 24656 and 24764 Mohr Drive, Hayward, California. Project No. J049.G.

August 8, 2022. (accessed June 2023)
Sneed, M., P.V.P. Orlando, J.W. Borchers, R. Everett, M. Solt, M. McGann, H. Lowers, and S. Mahan. 2015. Lithostratigraphic, borehole-geophysical, hydrogeologic, and hydrochemical data from the East Bay Plain, Alameda County, California. United States Geological Survey. Data Series 890, 56 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds890. (accessed June 2023) Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf. (accessed June 2023) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2023. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ (accessed August 2023)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species.
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe0989 3cf75b8dbfb77 (accessed August 2023)
______. 2023. National Wetlands Inventory.
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed August 2023)
University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2023. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed June 2023) List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Environmental Consistency Checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 under contract to the City of Hayward. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include:

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
Karly Kaufman, Project Manager
Nichole Yee, Associate Planner
JulieAnn Murphy, Architectural Historian
Andrew McGrath, Archaeologist
Debra Jane Seltzer, Publishing Manager
Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist
City of Hayward
24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project

106

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 1 / 48
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 2 / 48

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 3 / 48

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 4 / 48

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 5 / 48

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 6 / 48

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project
Construction Start Date 1/1/2024
Operational Y ear 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.30
Precipitation (days) 30.0
Location 24764 Mohr Dr, Hayward, CA 94545, USA
County Alameda
City Hayward
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1660
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.17

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 8 / 48
Single Family
Housing

12.0 Dwelling Unit 1.45 23,400 13,519 0.00 44.0 —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.68 5.40 20.0 20.9 0.03 0.92 7.35 8.27 0.85 3.49 4.34 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.10 1.67 3,791 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.67 5.40 20.0 20.8 0.03 0.92 7.35 8.27 0.85 3.49 4.34 — 3,743 3,743 0.15 0.10 0.04 3,778 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.86 1.11 6.00 6.63 0.01 0.26 1.57 1.84 0.24 0.74 0.99 — 1,094 1,094 0.04 0.02 0.19 1,103 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.16 0.20 1.09 1.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.04 0.14 0.18 — 181 181 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 183

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 9 / 48
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.68 2.24 20.0 20.9 0.03 0.92 7.35 8.27 0.85 3.49 4.34 — 3,754 3,754 0.15 0.10 1.67 3,791 2025 0.60 5.40 3.72 4.72 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.13 — 666 666 0.03 0.01 0.24 670 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.67 2.23 20.0 20.8 0.03 0.92 7.35 8.27 0.85 3.49 4.34 — 3,743 3,743 0.15 0.10 0.04 3,778 2025 0.78 5.40 5.21 7.05 0.01 0.24 0.10 0.35 0.22 0.02 0.25 — 1,070 1,070 0.04 0.01 0.01 1,075 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.86 0.71 6.00 6.63 0.01 0.26 1.57 1.84 0.24 0.74 0.99 — 1,094 1,094 0.04 0.02 0.19 1,103 2025 0.37 1.11 2.26 2.87 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.08 — 402 402 0.02 0.01 0.06 404 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.16 0.13 1.09 1.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.29 0.34 0.04 0.14 0.18 — 181 181 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 183 2025 0.07 0.20 0.41 0.52 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 66.6 66.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 67.0

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.48 1.03 0.30 3.51 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 6.45 824 831 0.61 0.04 2.80 859 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.40 0.95 0.34 2.77 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 6.45 784 790 0.61 0.04 0.24 817 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 10 / 48
——————————————————Average
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.42 0.97 0.32 2.91 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 0.58 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 6.45 773 780 0.61 0.04 1.28 807 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1.07 128 129 0.10 0.01 0.21 134

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.42 0.39 0.29 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 688 688 0.03 0.03 2.64 701 Area 0.06 0.64 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.83 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 0.48 1.03 0.30 3.51 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 6.45 824 831 0.61 0.04 2.80 859 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.40 0.37 0.34 2.77 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 649 649 0.04 0.03 0.07 660 Area 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 11 / 48
Total 0.40 0.95 0.34 2.77 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 6.45 784 790 0.61 0.04 0.24 817 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.39 0.36 0.31 2.58 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 0.58 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 — 638 638 0.03 0.03 1.11 650 Area 0.03 0.61 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.90 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total 0.42 0.97 0.32 2.91 0.01 < 0.005 0.57 0.58 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 6.45 773 780 0.61 0.04 1.28 807 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 0.01 0.01 0.18 108 Area 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.1 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.34 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.09 0.00 — 3.21 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 1.07 128 129 0.10 0.01 0.21 134

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 12 / 48
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 0.52 4.33 6.32 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 995 995 0.04 0.01 — 998 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 38.2 38.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.3 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.32 6.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.34 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.9 81.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 13 / 48
Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.30 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 234 234 0.01 0.04 0.01 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.16 3.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.97 8.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.49 1.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

3.3. Site Preparation (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.08 1.75 16.5 16.7 0.02 0.77 — 0.77 0.71 — 0.71 — 2,691 2,691 0.11 0.02 — 2,701 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.08 7.08 — 3.42 3.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 14 / 48
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.95 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 155 155 0.01 < 0.005 — 155 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.41 0.41 — 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.6 25.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.7 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 81.9 81.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.75 4.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 15 / 48
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.5. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.58 2.16 19.4 19.9 0.03 0.91 — 0.91 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,142 3,142 0.13 0.03 — 3,153 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.09 7.09 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 16 / 48
484—< 0.0050.02482482—0.13—0.130.14—0.14< 0.0053.062.980.330.40Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.09 1.09 — 0.53 0.53 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.54 0.56 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 79.8 79.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 457 457 0.02 0.07 1.01 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 143 143 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.58 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 458 458 0.02 0.07 0.03 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.1 22.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 — 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 17 / 48
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 70.2 70.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 3.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —

3.7. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 0.52 3.80 4.56 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 596 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 0.52 3.80 4.56 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 596 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.24 1.77 2.12 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 277 277 0.01 < 0.005 — 278 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 18 / 48
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.32 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.8 45.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.0 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.2 38.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.4 35.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.6 16.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.9. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 19 / 48
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 0.48 3.67 4.53 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 596 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 0.48 3.67 4.53 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 594 594 0.02 < 0.005 — 596 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.31 0.26 1.95 2.41 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 316 316 0.01 < 0.005 — 317 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.36 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.4 52.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.4 37.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 — 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 20 / 48
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 34.7 34.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.2 34.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.2 18.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01 3.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.74 0.62 5.18 6.62 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 970 970 0.04 0.01 — 973 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 21 / 48
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.7 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.09 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 100 100 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.94 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 22 / 48
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.18 1.52 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.18 1.52 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 178 178 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 5.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.18 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.4 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 23 / 48
————————————————0.80—Architect
ural
Coatings
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.52 4.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.54 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.48 7.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.94 6.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 24 / 48
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

0.42 0.39 0.29 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 688 688 0.03 0.03 2.64 701 Total 0.42 0.39 0.29 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 688 688 0.03 0.03 2.64 701 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.40 0.37 0.34 2.77 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 649 649 0.04 0.03 0.07 660 Total 0.40 0.37 0.34 2.77 0.01 < 0.005 0.60 0.60 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 — 649 649 0.04 0.03 0.07 660 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 0.01 0.01 0.18 108 Total 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 0.01 0.01 0.18 108 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 25 / 48

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 132 132 0.02 < 0.005 — 134 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.1 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.1

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 26 / 48
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 0.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 27 / 48
————————————————0.08—Architect
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.06 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.83 Total 0.06 0.64 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.83 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 0.50 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products
— 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15 Total 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.15

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 28 / 48

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.91 2.06 2.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.66 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.34 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.34 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 29 / 48
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.54 0.00 5.54 0.55 0.00 — 19.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.09 0.00 — 3.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.09 0.00 — 3.21

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 30 / 48
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.17
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 31 / 48

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 32 / 48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 33 / 48
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 34 / 48
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 1/18/2024 5.00 14.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/22/2024 2/19/2024 5.00 21.0 — Grading Grading 2/20/2024 5/7/2024 5.00 56.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/8/2024 9/29/2025 5.00 364 — Paving Paving 12/17/2025 12/25/2025 5.00 7.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/30/2025 12/16/2025 5.00 56.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 35 / 48

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 16.0 0.38 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Trenchers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 40.0 0.50
Building Construction Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Pressure Washers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.30 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 36 / 48
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 2.86 23.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 22.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 5.59 23.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 4.32 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.28 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 23.0 HHDT
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 37 / 48
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 23.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.86 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 23.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 47,385 15,795 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,400 —
Site Preparation — — 21.0 0.00 —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 38 / 48
Grading 2,500 — 56.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.13 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
113 114 103 40,853 838 847 759 302,100

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 39 / 48
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
47385 15,795 0.00 0.00 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 40 / 48
Single Family Housing 236,774 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 426,130 187,725

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 10.3 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

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

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 41 / 48

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 42 / 48
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 43 / 48
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 44 / 48
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 10.6
AQ-PM 28.7
AQ-DPM 77.7
Drinking Water 6.74
Lead Risk Housing 53.1
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 72.7
Traffic 71.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 75.7
Groundwater 88.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 92.0
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 42.3
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 91.2
Cardio-vascular 81.0
Low Birth Weights 41.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 49.2
Housing 38.1
Linguistic 48.7
Poverty 33.2
Unemployment 49.9
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 45 / 48

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 62.33799564
Employed 50.78916977
Median HI 68.84383421
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 52.99627871
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 63.27473374
Transportation —
Auto Access 53.75336841
Active commuting 63.72385474
Social —
2-parent households 30.83536507
Voting 48.49223662
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 54.47196202
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 78.18555114
Supermarket access 19.79982035
Tree canopy 45.30989349
Housing —
Homeownership 51.39227512
Housing habitability 48.69754908
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 35.32657513 24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 46 / 48
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 63.81367894
Uncrowded housing 38.58591043
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.18940074
Arthritis 21.6
Asthma ER Admissions 4.1
High Blood Pressure 36.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 29.3
Asthma 58.2
Coronary Heart Disease 31.2
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 42.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 28.0
Cognitively Disabled 25.4
Physically Disabled 39.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 3.5
Mental Health Not Good 60.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 27.1
Obesity 67.3
Pedestrian Injuries 64.7
Physical Health Not Good 49.1
Stroke 29.9
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 89.9
Current Smoker 63.1
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 42.7
Climate Change Exposures —
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 47 / 48
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 43.1
Elderly 33.9
English Speaking 34.1
Foreign-born 69.5
Outdoor Workers 80.9
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 25.8
Traffic Density 56.3
Traffic Access 61.1
Other Indices —
Hardship 40.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 36.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 66.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 62.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
24764 & 27656 Mohr Drive Project Detailed Report, 8/22/2023 48 / 48
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per project plans. Population assumes a pph of 3.03 and one person per each JADU.

Construction: Construction Phases Per applicant provided construction schedule 1/2024-12/2025 Construction: Off-Road Equipment Per applicant provided construction equipment list Construction: Trips and VMT Per applicant provided hauling trip length of 23 miles Construction: Architectural Coatings BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 nonflat coating Operations: Hearths No fireplaces
Operations: Architectural Coatings BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3 nonflat coating Operations: Energy Use Per City Reach Code, all electric new development Operations: Water and Waste Water WTP 100% aerobic

Appendix B
Arborist Report

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Preliminary Arborist Report

24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA 94545

PREPARED FOR
Nuvera Homes
7041 Koll Center Pkwy | Suite 130
Pleasanton, CA 94566

PREPARED BY:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566

April 19, 2022

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2

Suitability for Preservation 5

Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 7

Tree Appraisal 8

Tree Preservation Guidelines 8

List of Tables

Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence 2
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 6
Table 4. Tree Protection Zones 8

Exhibits

Tree Assessment Plan
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Disposition Form
Tree Appraisal Form

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com

Preliminary Arborist Report
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA

Introduction and Overview
Nuvera Homes is planning to redevelop 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive in Hayward, CA. Currently, the site is comprised of two single family homes on larges lot with native, ornamental, and fruit trees. Nuvera Homes plans to construct 12 single family lots on the site. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting was asked assess trees and prepare an Arborist Report.

I used the Preliminary Application Site Plan created by CBG Civil Engineers (dated March 2022), my tree assessment notes, and my inventory map to estimate impacts to trees. The plans include the approximate locations of only one (coast redwood #38) of the 67 total trees. The plans specify building 12 single family lots, a road, walkways and driveways, bioretention areas, and new landscaping. This Arborist Report is preliminary because it is based on conceptual plans that lacked surveyed tree locations and details about utilities, grading, construction methods, etc.

This report provides the following information:

1. Assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within and with crown overhanging the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. Evaluation of the trees that would be preserved and removed based on Nuvera Home’s Preliminary Application Site Plan.

3. Appraisal of value of the trees assessed.

4. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.

Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on March 3, 2022. The survey included trees 4” in trunk diameter and larger. Trees located within the proposed project area, those with crown overhanging the area, and street trees of any size were assessed. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree as to species;

2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map;

3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 4.5’ above grade (DBH);

4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

5. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.

High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 2

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.

Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas.

Description of Trees
Trees were assessed on March 3, 2022. Sixty-seven (67) trees representing 19 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in poor (40%) to good condition (39%) with 21% in fair condition. The assessment included three offsite trees (#26, 59, and 67) with crown overhanging the project area. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).

Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive, Hayward, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)

Red maple Acer rubrum - - - 1 1
Leyland cypress
Cupressocyparis
leylandii - 1 1 1 3
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus - 2 1 - 3
California black
walnut Juglans hindsii - - 1 1 2
Apple Malus domestica - 1 - - 1
Lemon bottlebrush Melaleuca citrinus - 6 - - 6
Beech spp. Fagus spp. - - - 1 1
Fruiting pear Pyrus spp. - 1 - - 1
Plum spp. Prunus spp. - 1 - - 1
Cherry spp. Prunus spp. - 2 - - 2
Fig spp. Ficus spp. - 2 - - 2
Persimmon spp. Diospyros spp. - 2 1 - 3
Olive Olea europaea - 1 - - 1
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - - 1 - 1
Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 2 - - 2
Lombardy poplar Populus nigra ‘Italica’ - 1 5 - 6
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 4 4 4 12
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - - - 18 18
California bay Umbellularia californica - 1 - - 1

Total

- 27 14 26 67

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 3

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Species diversity on the site was higher than the
average Bay Area parcel of this size. Species
onsite included: California natives (coast live oak,
California black walnut, California bay, and coast
redwood), fruit trees (pears, plums, apples, fig,
and persimmon), and common landscape trees
(California pepper, lemon bottle brush, olive,
poplar, red maple, and Leyland cypress). Overall,
the trees ranged from young (4” DBH) to over-
mature (65” DBH) with an average trunk diameter
of 18”. The site was also densely vegetated and
covered with debris.

The 18 coast redwoods were the healthiest trees
on the property. All 18 trees were in good
condition with vigorous crowns and pyramidal
forms typical of the species. Coast redwood #38
was the largest tree assessed with trunk diameters
of 65” and 15” (Photo 1). The tree had over
extended branches and a slightly thin upper
crown.

Twelve (12) coast live oaks grew mostly on the
eastern end of the property. Tree conditions
ranged from good (4 trees) to poor (4 trees) with
four trees in fair condition. The oaks varied in
diameter from 6” to 37”. Eleven (11) coast live oaks (#26-36) were located along the southeastern fence line. These oaks grew crowded together and many had trunks embedded in the chain link fence (Photo 2). Coast live oak #58 was a standalone tree located 8’ south of the northern fence line. It was in good condition with a vigorous, spreading crown.

Three blue gums (#12, 13, and 37) were
among the largest trees on the property.

Trunk diameters ranged from 38” to 50”.

Blue gums #12 and 13 were in poor
condition with internal decay and
compromised structure. Blue gum #37
was in fair condition a vigorous crown and
included bark between codominants
stems, an indicator of a compromised
attachment.

A group of six Lombardy poplar grew in
the center of the property (Photo 3). Five
were in fair condition and one (#61) was in
poor condition with a large rotting wound
at its base, the result of a previous stem
failure.

Photo 1 – Coast redwood #38 was
one of the largest trees on-site.

Photo 2 – Eleven coast live oaks grew crowded
together along the southeastern fence line.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 4

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company The remaining 15 species comprised 58% of the remaining trees. The most noteworthy of these included:
• Two Monterey pines in poor
condition (#25 and 57) and
one Italian stone pine in fair
condition (#21). The Italian
stone pine was located in a
landscaped area in front of an
existing house and had been
bonsai pruned. Monterey pine
#25 and 57 both had poor
structure.
• Two California black walnuts.

Walnut #67 was located offsite
and was in fair condition.

Walnut #56 was in good
condition and was mature in
development at 20” DBH.
• Six lemon bottlebrush (#16-20
and #23) in poor condition.

The trees grew along Mohr
Drive in front of an existing
house. The trees had been topiary pruned.

The City of Hayward (Municipal Code Section 10-15.13) protects native trees 4” and greater and all trees 8” and greater in trunk diameter. It also provides protection for street trees and trees on City property of any size. Based on this definition, 62 of the 67 assessed trees are protected and cannot be removed without a permit. Tree protected status is identified in the Tree Assessment (see Exhibits).

Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well ov er an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape.

Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. For trees growing in open fields, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail.

However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue.

Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:

• Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, Monterey pine #57 has low vigor likely and will not tolerate construction impacts as well as a healthier Monterey pine.

Photo 3 – A group of six Lombardy poplar grew in
the center of the property.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 5

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Examples include blue gums #12 and 13 with signs of decay in their bases.

• Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For instance, coast redwood (with adequate irrigation) and coast live oak are more tolerant of construction impacts than California black walnut.

• Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees such as coast redwoods #39-54 are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.

• Species invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Hayward is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blue gum and olive have limited invasiveness potential.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in Exhibits, and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
24765 Hesperian Blvd., Hayward, CA

High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Twenty-three (23) trees had high suitability for preservation.

Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category.

Nine trees had moderate suitability for preservation.

Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Thirty-five (35) trees had low suitability for preservation.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 6

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
I used the Preliminary Application Site Plan created by CBG Civil Engineers (dated March 2022), my tree assessment notes, and my inventory map to estimate impacts to trees. The plans include the approximate locations of only one (coast redwood #38) of the 67 total trees. The plans specify building 12 single family lots, a road, walkways and driveways, bioretention areas, and new landscaping. This Arborist Report is preliminary because it is based on conceptual plans that lacked surveyed tree locations and details about utilities, grading, construction methods, etc.

Based on my evaluation of anticipated impacts to trees and the trees’ suitability for preservation, I recommend:
• 52 trees for removal (47 protected);
• 14 trees for preservation (14 protected, 3 off-site); • coast redwood #38 for potential preservation (1 protected).

See the Tree Disposition Exhibit for more information.

The combination of poor tree condition and high intensity of development of the site will require the removal of 52 of the 67 total trees. The greatest opportunity for successful tree preservation lies with off-site trees and trees growing in the southeast corner of the property, which will be preserved as an open space.

Coast redwood #38 may be potentially preserved, depending on the proximity and severity of planned impacts. Based on the plans, the tree was located approximately 5 to 10 feet from a proposed walkway. I anticipate this work will have moderate impacts to the tree. To enable preservation of the tree, its location should be accurately surveyed and plotted on plans. Then, plans should be designed such that there is no disturbance (no paving, grading, utility installation, etc.) occurs within 15 to 20 feet of the tree. The coast redwood will also require regular irrigation with potable water before, during, and after development. This will help it tolerate impacts better.

Tree Protection Zones need to be established around trees to be preserved and the Tree Preservation Guidelines need to be followed.

Tree Appraisal
The City of Hayward requires an appraisal of the value of the trees on the property. In appraising the value of the trees, we employed the standard methods found in Guide for Plant Appraisal , 10th edition (International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign IL, 2000). In addition, we referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two documents outline the methods employed in tree appraisal.

The value of landscape trees is based on four factors: size, species, condition and location. Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. The species factor considers the adaptability and appropriateness of the plant in the East Bay area. The Species Classification and Group Assignment lists recommended species ratings. Condition reflects the health and structural integrity of the individual. The location factor considers the site, placement and contribution of the tree in its surrounding landscape.

The value of the 15 trees to be preserved and potentially preserved is $28,000. The value of the 52 trees to be removed is $230,550. The value of each tree is given in the Tree Appraisal exhibit.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 7

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Preservation Guidelines
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.

Design recommendations

1. A Tree Protection Zone shall be established around each tree to be preserved. Table 4 shows the radius of the Tree Protection Zone for each tree to be preserved. The fenced off Tree Protection Zones should be adjusted once plans are finalized. These fenced off zones may also be adjusted during specific phases of construction to ensure there is adequate space to safely and effectively proceed with work. After that work is done, however, the fencing should be moved back to its original location. The fencing should not be moved closer than 5 feet from each trees’ trunk. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.

Table 4: Tree Protection Zones
24765 Hesperian Blvd., Hayward, CA

Tag # Species Diameter
(in.)
Heritage Tree
Protection
Zone
38 Coast redwood 62,15 Yes 20 feet
27 Coast live oak 8,6,5,4,3 Yes 10 feet
29 Coast live oak 6 Yes 10 feet
28 Coast live oak 10 Yes 10 feet
67 California black walnut 30,25 Yes 15 feet
34 Coast live oak 10 Yes 10 feet
60 Coast redwood 24 Yes 12 feet
25 Monterey pine 17 Yes 10 feet
26 Coast live oak 5,5,2 Yes 10 feet
30 Coast live oak 26 Yes 15 feet
31 Coast live oak 15,14,7 Yes 15 feet
32 Coast live oak 8 Yes 10 feet
33 Coast live oak 11,10,8,8,8,8 Yes 10 feet
37 Blue gum 38 Yes 20 feet
35 Coast live oak 14,12,10 Yes 10 feet

2. Include trees to be preserved and Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) on all construction plans.

3. Project plans affecting the trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, site plans, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.

4. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the Tree Protection Zone.

5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 8

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

6. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.

Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.

Pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. Fence all trees to be retained prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Tree protection fencing should be placed at the edge of the Tree Protection Zone. Fences shall be 6’ tall chain link. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed.

2. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown of dead branches 1” and larger in diameter, raise canopies as needed for construction activities. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). The Consulting Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition shall be tied back and protected from damage.

3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12” below ground surface.

4. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. Tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season to avoid scheduling delays. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

Recommendations for tree protection during construction

1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.

2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.

3. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

4. Tree protection fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.

6. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Consulting Arborist.

7. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.

Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 9

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

8. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the Tree Protection Zone.

9. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks April through October is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 24”.

Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre- development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.

As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for structural condition is recommended.

If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Jillian Keller, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
Certified Arborist and Utility Specialist #WE-12057A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ)
Wildlife Trained Arborist
Preliminary Arborist Report, 24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive HortScience | Bartlett Consulting April 19, 2022 Page 10

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Exhibits

Tree Assessment Plan

Tree Assessment Form

Tree Disposition Form

Tree Appraisal
Tree Assessment Map
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
Prepared for:

Nuvera Homes
Pleasanton, CA
March 2022
No Scale
Notes:

Base map provided by:

CBG
San Ramon, CA
Numbered tree locations are approximate.
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, California 94566
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
8 67
65 66
64 63
62 61
60 55
56 57 58
59 54 39
38 37
36 34 35 33
31 30
28 29
32 27
26 25
24 23
22 21 20
19 18
17 16
12 13
15 14
10 11
9 7
6 2
3-5
1 8
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Beech spp. 13 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant at 1'; poor structure. 2 Fruiting pear 11 Yes 2 Low Codominant at 2'; lean; poor structure; fire blight. 3 Leyland cypress 6 No 4 Moderate Good young tree.
4 Leyland cypress 4 No 2 Low Crowded canopy from #3; planted 2' from adjacent trees. 5 Leyland cypress 5 No 3 Low Crowded canopy from #4; planted 2' from adjacent tree. 6 Apple 7 No 2 Low Codominant at 1' with included bark; severe lean; fire blight. 7 Plum spp. 13 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at base; minor lean; poor structure with conflicting branches.
8 Cherry spp. 9 Yes 2 Low Heading cuts for clearance; sinuous trunk; crowded conflicting branches.
9 Cherry spp. 19 Yes 2 Low Codominant at base; decay in trunk; severe bow; poor structure. 10 Fig spp. 25 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 3'; poor structure; overextended branches; damage on trunk.
11 Fig spp. 12 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor structure; vigorous growth. 12 Blue gum 50 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at base with included bark; decay and fruiting bodies on trunk; lean to NE.
13 Blue gum 40 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 4' with included bark; decay and fruiting bodies on trunk; poor attachments; poor structure.
14 Persimmon spp. 7 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 5'; topped; poor structure. 15 Persimmon spp. 8 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 4'; topped; poor structure. 16 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 1'; decay at base; topiaried; diameter taken at 3'.
17 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 1'; topiaried; diameter taken at 3'. 18 Lemon bottlebrush 15 Yes 2 Low Codominant at base; decay at base; topiaried; diameter taken at 3'.
19 Lemon bottlebrush 12 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 1'; topiaried; diameter taken at 3'. 20 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 1'; topiaried; diameter taken at 3'. 21 Italian stone pine 12 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 5'; bonsai pruned; minor lean.

Tree Assessment
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
March 2022
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
March 2022
22 Olive 15 Yes 2 Low No tag; inaccessible; multiple attachments at 1'; topped; poor structure.
23 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes 1 Low Multiple attachments at 1'; topped; diameter taken at 3'; chlorotic leaves; small crown.
24 California bay 22 Yes 2 Low No tag; Codominant at 2'; basal sprouts; engulfed in vines; poor structure.
25 Monterey pine 17 Yes 2 Low At fence line; multiple attachments at base; embedded in fence; unbalanced crown.
26 Coast live oak 12 Yes 1 Low Offsite 5' behind E fence line; no tag; significant dieback; flagging; high crown.
27 Coast live oak 19 Yes 2 Low Codominant at 4' with minor included bark; embedded in E fence; strong lean; branch damage.
28 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low Codominant at 5' with 1' seam; thin high crown; embedded in E. fence.
29 Coast live oak 6 Yes 2 Low 3' from E. fence; lean; 1' trunk wound at 2'; suppressed under #30; sinuous trunk; think high crown.
30 Coast live oak 26 Yes 4 High Embedded E. in fence; Codominant at 6' with 1' seam; vigorous spreading canopy.
31 Coast live oak 36 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant at base with seam; embedded in E. fence; vigorous spreading crown.
32 Coast live oak 8 Yes 3 Low Outside of E. fence; embedded in fence; thin high narrow crown; slight lean.
33 Coast live oak 28 Yes 3 Moderate At S. fence line; embedded in fence; multiple attachments at 2' with included bark; thin high spreading crown; poor structure. 34 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Low At S. fence line; embedded in fence; thin high narrow crown; poor structure; suppressed by #33 & #35.
35 Coast live oak 36 Yes 4 High At S. fence line; multiple attachments at 2'; slightly thin high spreading crown.
36 Coast live oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate At S. fence line; severe lean and bow; suppressed by #35; unbalanced crown.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
March 2022
37 Blue gum 38 Yes 3 Low Codominant at base; 8' of included bark; 1' trunk wound at 5'; smaller trunk wraps around main stem; vigorous crown.
38 Coast redwood 77 Yes 4 High 26' from N. fence; codominant at base; smaller trunk has bow and lean; slightly thin upper canopy; some overextended branches. 39 Coast redwood 10 Yes 4 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree; low branching. 40 Coast redwood 10 Yes 4 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree; girdling rubber tie. 41 Coast redwood 9 Yes 4 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 42 Coast redwood 12 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree; girdling rubber tie. 43 Coast redwood 9 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 44 Coast redwood 10 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 45 Coast redwood 12 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 46 Coast redwood 11 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 47 Coast redwood 11 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 48 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 49 Coast redwood 11 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 50 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 51 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 52 Coast redwood 13 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 53 Coast redwood 15 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 54 Coast redwood 14 Yes 5 High 1' from S. fence; good young tree. 55 Red maple 17 Yes 4 High Some tight branch unions with included bark; vigorous spreading crown.
56 California black
walnut
20 Yes 4 High 11' from N. fence; codominant at 11'; heading cuts in lower canopy; ivy on trunk.
57 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2 Low 8' from N. fence; thin high crown; twig and branch die back throughout crown; past failures.
58 Coast live oak 37 Yes 4 High 8' from N. fence; Codominant at 3' with included bark; third stem removed 15"; vigorous spreading crown.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
March 2022
59 Persimmon spp. 15 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 2'; old pruning wound with decay at 2'; smaller stem topped at 4'; sinuous stem; vigorous crown.
60 Coast redwood 24 Yes 4 High Offsite 2' S. of S. fence; slightly thin but vigorous crown; excellent structure.
61 Lombardy poplar 15 Yes 2 Low 10' from N. fence; multiple attachments at base; large stem failure at base; rot at base; basal sprouts.
62 Lombardy poplar 13 Yes 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; poor structure; bowed stems; basal sprouts.
63 Lombardy poplar 9 Yes 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; basal sprouts; poor structure. 64 Lombardy poplar 41 Yes 3 Moderate 7' from N. fence; codominant at 3'; basal sprouts; minor twig and branch dieback; poor structure; tight branches with included bark. 65 Lombardy poplar 11 Yes 3 Low 15' from N. fence; multiple attachments at 3'; basal sprouts; poor structure; unbalanced crown.
66 Lombardy poplar 42 Yes 3 Low 8' from N. fence; multiple attachments at 3'; basal sprouts; poor structure; unbalanced crown; tight branches with included bark. 67 California black
walnut
55 Yes 3 Moderate Offsite 5' S. of S. fence; no tag; trunk not visible; spreading vigorous canopy; previous heading cuts.

Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Suitability for
Preservation
Disposition Comments
1 Beech spp. 13 Yes Moderate Remove Located where road paving is planned 2 Fruiting pear 11 Yes Low Remove Located too close in proximity to proposed house construction; low suitability for preservation
3 Leyland cypress 6 No Moderate Remove Located where house construction is planned 4 Leyland cypress 4 No Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 5 Leyland cypress 5 No Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 6 Apple 7 No Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 7 Plum spp. 13 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 8 Cherry spp. 9 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 9 Cherry spp. 19 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 10 Fig spp. 25 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 11 Fig spp. 12 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 12 Blue gum 50 Yes Low Remove Located where road paving is planned 13 Blue gum 40 Yes Low Remove Located where road paving is planned 14 Persimmon spp. 7 No Low Remove Located too close in proximity to proposed house and driveway construction; low suitability for preservation
15 Persimmon spp. 8 Yes Low Remove Located too close in proximity to proposed house construction; low suitability for preservation
16 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes Low Remove Located where driveway construction is planned 17 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes Low Remove Located where driveway construction is planned 18 Lemon bottlebrush 15 Yes Low Remove In landcape area adjacent to proposed driveway construction; low suitability for preservation
19 Lemon bottlebrush 12 Yes Low Remove In landscape area; low suitability 20 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes Low Remove In landscape area; low suitability 21 Italian stone pine 12 Yes Moderate Remove Located too close in proximity to proposed bioretention area 22 Olive 15 Yes Low Remove Located too close in proximity to proposed bioretention area, landscaping, and fence; low suitability for preservatino 23 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes Low Remove In landscape area in close proximity to proposed bioretention area; low suitability
Tree Disposition
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
April 2022
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Suitability for
Preservation
Disposition Comments
Tree Disposition
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
April 2022
24 California bay 22 Yes Low Remove Adjacent to proposed house construction; low suitability for preservation
25 Monterey pine 17 Yes Low Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 26 Coast live oak 12 Yes Low Preserve Off-site and adjacent to area to be conserved as open space 27 Coast live oak 19 Yes Low Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 28 Coast live oak 10 Yes Low Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 29 Coast live oak 6 Yes Low Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 30 Coast live oak 26 Yes High Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 31 Coast live oak 36 Yes Moderate Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 32 Coast live oak 8 Yes Low Preserve Off-site and adjacent to area to be conserved as open space 33 Coast live oak 28 Yes Moderate Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 34 Coast live oak 10 Yes Low Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 35 Coast live oak 36 Yes High Preserve At property line and within to area to be conserved as open space 36 Coast live oak 18 Yes Moderate Remove Too close in proximity to proposed house construction; poor structure and form; conflicts with proposed solar panels 37 Blue gum 38 Yes Low Preserve Within to area to be conserved as open space; consider removal due to poor suitability for preservation
38 Coast redwood 77 Yes High Potentially
preserve
~5-10' from proposed walkway; no disturbance within 15-20' with regular irrigation before, during, and after development for best chances of successful preservation
39 Coast redwood 10 Yes High Remove Too close in proximity to proposed house construction; conflicts with proposed solar panels
40 Coast redwood 10 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Suitability for
Preservation
Disposition Comments
Tree Disposition
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
April 2022
41 Coast redwood 9 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
42 Coast redwood 12 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
43 Coast redwood 9 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
44 Coast redwood 10 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
45 Coast redwood 12 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
46 Coast redwood 11 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
47 Coast redwood 11 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
48 Coast redwood 13 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
49 Coast redwood 11 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
50 Coast redwood 13 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
51 Coast redwood 13 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
52 Coast redwood 13 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
53 Coast redwood 15 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
54 Coast redwood 14 Yes High Remove Conflicts with proposed solar panels; within landscaped backyard of new house
55 Red maple 17 Yes High Remove Located where driveway construction is planned 56 California black
walnut
20 Yes High Remove Located where paved walkway is planned 57 Monterey pine 28 Yes Low Remove Located where road paving is planned Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Suitability for
Preservation
Disposition Comments
Tree Disposition
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
April 2022
58 Coast live oak 37 Yes High Remove Located where road paving is planned 59 Persimmon spp. 15 Yes Moderate Remove Located where house construction is planned 60 Coast redwood 24 Yes High Preserve Off-site; adjacent to backyard of proposed house; minimize distrubance within 10' and irrigate for best chance of successful preservation
61 Lombardy poplar 15 Yes Low Remove Located where road paving is planned 62 Lombardy poplar 13 Yes Low Remove Located too close to proposed driveway and house construction; low suitability for preservation
63 Lombardy poplar 9 Yes Low Remove Located where house construction is planned 64 Lombardy poplar 41 Yes Moderate Remove Located where road paving is planned 65 Lombardy poplar 11 Yes Low Remove Located too close to proposed house construction; low suitability for preservation
66 Lombardy poplar 42 Yes Low Remove Located too close to walkway construction; low suitability for preservation
67 California black
walnut
55 Yes Moderate Preserve Off-site; adjacent to backyard of proposed house; minimize distrubance within 15' (species is sensitive to root loss) and irrigate for best chance of successful preservation
Tree
No. Species Trunk Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree
Estimated
Value
1 Beech spp. 13 Yes 850$
2 Fruiting pear 11 Yes 600$
3 Leyland cypress 6 No 600$
4 Leyland cypress 4 No 250$
5 Leyland cypress 5 No 400$
6 Apple 7 No 350$
7 Plum spp. 13 Yes 700$
8 Cherry spp. 9 Yes 750$
9 Cherry spp. 19 Yes 1,100$
10 Fig spp. 25 Yes 1,350$
11 Fig spp. 12 Yes 450$
12 Blue gum 50 Yes 11,950$
13 Blue gum 40 Yes 7,700$
14 Persimmon spp. 7 No 550$
15 Persimmon spp. 8 Yes 400$
16 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes 1,300$
17 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes 1,450$
18 Lemon bottlebrush 15 Yes 750$
19 Lemon bottlebrush 12 Yes 1,400$
20 Lemon bottlebrush 20 Yes 1,750$
21 Italian stone pine 12 Yes 1,400$
22 Olive 15 Yes 550$
23 Lemon bottlebrush 13 Yes 400$
24 California bay 22 Yes 3,050$
25 Monterey pine 17 Yes 1,650$
26 Coast live oak 12 Yes 300$
27 Coast live oak 19 Yes 1,050$
28 Coast live oak 10 Yes 1,050$
29 Coast live oak 6 Yes 500$
30 Coast live oak 26 Yes 13,700$
31 Coast live oak 36 Yes 8,600$
32 Coast live oak 8 Yes 1,100$
33 Coast live oak 28 Yes 3,350$
34 Coast live oak 10 Yes 1,600$
35 Coast live oak 36 Yes 6,950$
36 Coast live oak 18 Yes 2,250$
37 Blue gum 38 Yes 14,600$
38 Coast redwood 77 Yes 53,000$
39 Coast redwood 10 Yes 1,450$
40 Coast redwood 10 Yes 1,450$
Estimated Value
24656 & 24764 Mohr Drive
Hayward, CA
March 2022
41 Coast redwood 9 Yes 1,200$
42 Coast redwood 12 Yes 2,600$
43 Coast redwood 9 Yes 1,550$
44 Coast redwood 10 Yes 1,850$
45 Coast redwood 12 Yes 2,600$
46 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2,200$
47 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2,200$
48 Coast redwood 13 Yes 3,000$
49 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2,200$
50 Coast redwood 13 Yes 3,000$
51 Coast redwood 13 Yes 3,000$
52 Coast redwood 13 Yes 3,000$
53 Coast redwood 15 Yes 3,950$
54 Coast redwood 14 Yes 3,450$
55 Red maple 17 Yes 3,050$
56 California black walnut 20 Yes 6,150$
57 Monterey pine 28 Yes 3,550$
58 Coast live oak 37 Yes 13,850$
59 Persimmon spp. 15 Yes 1,600$
60 Coast redwood 24 Yes 7,650$
61 Lombardy poplar 15 Yes 700$
62 Lombardy poplar 13 Yes 600$
63 Lombardy poplar 9 Yes 500$
64 Lombardy poplar 41 Yes 9,150$
65 Lombardy poplar 11 Yes 550$
66 Lombardy poplar 42 Yes 6,250$
67 California black walnut 55 Yes 16,500$
Total 258,550$

Appendix C
Cultural Resources Assessment

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455

w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
July 31, 2023
Project No: 23-14650
Taylor Richard, Associate Planner
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, California 94544
Submitted via email: [email protected]
Subject: Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project, 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive, Hayward, Alameda County, California Dear Ms. Richard:

This letter report presents the findings of a cultural resources assessment completed in support of the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project (proposed project) located at 24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive, Hayward, Alameda County, California . The City of Hayward (City) retained Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) to support the proposed project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter report documents the results of the tasks performed by Rincon, specifically a review of cultural resources records search completed in 2019, archival and background research, and a field survey. All work was completed in accordance with CEQA and applicable local regulations as outlined in the City’s 2040 General Plan.

This cultural resources assessment was conducted by Architectural Historian Project Manager JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP, who performed the field survey with direction from Archaeologist Courtney Montgomery, MA, and are the primary authors of this memorandum. Archaeologist Rachel Bilchak, BA, RA is a contributing author of this memorandum. Cultural Resources Director Steven Treffers provided project oversight and reviewed the memorandum for quality control. Ms. Murphy, Ms. Montgomery, and Mr. Treffers meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in their respective fields.

Project Site and Description
The project site is approximately 1.43 acres in size and consists of two parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 441-0074-030-00 located at 24656 Mohr Drive (Parcel 1) and APN 441-0074-009- 00 located at 24764 Mohr Drive (Parcel 2) (Figure 1). The project site is bound by commercial development to the north, and residential development to the northeast, east, south, and west.

Specifically, the proposed project encompasses portions of Section 29 of Township 3 South, Range 2 West on the Hayward, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2).

The following project description has been adapted from information provided by the City in July 2023.

The proposed project would involve rezoning the project site from Medium Density Residential and Single Family Residential to Planned Development. The proposed project would also involve a new single-family residential subdivision including construction of 12 single -family residences, seven of which would include Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, as well as a Vesting Tentative Map. Development of the new single -family residential subdivision would include demolition of existing struc tures and fences, removal of several trees and overgrown vegetation, and widening of the east side of Mohr City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 2 Drive by 5 feet. The maximum depth of ground disturbance will be limited to the depth necessary for proposed new building foundations, approximately 6 feet.

Methods
Background and Archival Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this assessment in July 2023. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included, but were not limited to, historical maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following sources were utilized to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
• Alameda County Assessor’s Office
• Historical aerial photographs accessed via NETR Online • Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder
• Historical USGS topographic maps
• City of Hayward Building Permits accessed via the City of Hayward California Historical Resources Information System Records Search On July 9, 2019 , Rincon conducted a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) (Attachment 2). The NWIC is the official state repository for cultural resources records a nd reports for Alameda County. The purpose of the records search was to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5 -mile radius surrounding it. The records search was completed as part of a separate project adjacent to the project site. Previously obtained results were reviewed and analyzed to support the current project. Rincon also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Regis ter of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California Historical Landmarks list, and the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), as well as its predecessor the California State Historic Property Data (HPD) File. Additionally, Rincon reviewed the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Sacred Lands File Search
Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on June 29, 2023, to request a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF), as well as a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project site vicinity (Attachment 3).

Field Survey
Rincon Senior Architectural Historian, JulieAnn Murphy, conducted a built environment and pedestrian survey of the project site on July 10, 2023. The built environment resources within the project site, including buildings, structures , and landscape elements, were visually inspected. Pursuant to OHP Guidelines (California OHP 1995: 2), properties over 45 years of age were evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP and the CRHR and recorded on California Department of Parks (DPR) 523 series forms (Attachment 4). Overall condition and integrity of these resources were documented and assessed.

The pedestrian survey also included a visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces. Under the direction of Archaeologist Courtney Montgomery , Ms. Murphy also examined exposed ground surfaces City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 3 for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool -making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire -affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).

Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were also visually inspected. Site characteristics and survey conditions were documented using field records and a digital camera. Copies of the survey notes and digital photographs are maintained at our Rincon Oakland office.

Findings
Known Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search and background research identified 12 cultural resources studies within

0.5 miles of the project site ( Attachment 2). Of these studies, none included a portion of the project site or were immediately adjacent to the project site. No known studies have been previously conducted within or adjacent to the project site.

Known Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search and background research identified no cultural resources within 0.5 mile of the project site.

Aerial Imagery and Historical Topographic Maps Review
Rincon completed a review of historical topographic maps and aerial imagery to ascertain the development history of the project site and surrounding area. Historical topographic maps from 1899 to 1939 depict the project site as vacant, undeveloped land surrounded by roads on all sides , with sparse residential development in the immediate vicinity, with the exception of two clusters of development – one to the northwest and one to the southeast of the project site (NETR Online 2023; USGS 2023). By this time, there was also rail lines to the west and east of the project site (NETR Online 2023; USGS 2023). Topographic maps from 1942 depict the projec t site in it s generally current condition, developed with two residences. Additionally, the area surrounding the project site was more developed by this time with residential subdivisions to the west of the project site and some commercial development to t he south. Topographic maps through 1950 and historical aerials from 1946 depict the same condition (NETR Online 2023; USGS 2023). Historical aerials from 1958 show the project site in the same condition with additional residential development in former agr icultural land to the north and west of the project site. Aerial imagery from 1958 and topographic maps from 1960 show that Interstate 880 was constructed east of the project site (NETR Online 2023; USGS 2023). Historical aerials depict the development of Chabot College east and adjacent to the project site beginning in 1966 (NETR Online 2023). Aerial imagery from 1968 to 2020 depict the project site in its current condition, with two residences and surrounded by residential development (NETR Online 2023).

Sacred Land File Search
On July 10, 2023 , the NAHC responded to Rinco n’s SLF request, stating that the results of the SLF search were negative. See Attachment 3 for the NAHC response, including the Tribal contacts list.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 4 Survey Results
As a result of the survey, two historical age properties were identified. Both were recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility. The results are presented below and the attached DPR forms (Attachment 4).

Built Environment Resources
24764 Mohr Drive

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The property at 24764 Mohr Drive is on an approximately one-acre parcel that spans the width of the block with the primary, west elevation fronting Mohr Drive. The rear of the property backs onto the Chabot College Baseball field to the east. The property is lined with mature trees along the south, east, and north edges of the property with a wood fence fronted by a lawn along the primary, street -facing elevation and temporary chain link fence along the front of the property. The property contains several buildings including a main residence, an accessory dwelling unit, and a shed building. A long, unpaved drive at the south end of the property provides access from the street and continues for the length of the parcel.

The main residence is a one to two story bungalow with a rectangular plan, a combination hip and gable roof, and textured stucco exterior (Photograph 1). It includes elements of the Spanish Colonial Revival style including an asymmetrical façade and arched porch entry. The residence is comprised of two parts – a one story section that is one bay deep and a two-story rear addition. The primary, west, elevation entry is at the building’s north end, accessed by a short wooden set of stairs. The remainder of the elevation includes one picture window with round stucco vents above. The south elevation features a red-brick chimney at the one-story portion. The elevation continues to the two-story portion with an uneven gable roof and irregular openings at the first and second level. The rear elevation includes symmetrical openings at the second floor and a secondary entry covered with a gable awning at the northeast corner. The nort h elevation generally repeats the same configuration described on the south elevation with the exception of a small one-story entry addition with a secondary entry door at its west elevation. The building is vacant and in poor condition. All windows and op enings are boarded up, but there is evidence of squatters, fire damage, and vandalism.

Northeast of the main residence there is a one-story accessory dwelling. It has an L-shaped plan, cross gable roof, and stucco exterior (Photograph 2). The primary entry is on the south elevation, facing the main residence. It has aluminum slide windows throughout and features wood plank detailing below the gable at the roofline. There is a secondary entrance at the east elevation. There is a plywood addition at the south elevation which appears to have been a storage room. The building is in poor condition and has a tarp cover on the roof. Windows are partially boarded up.

The area west o f the accessory dwelling and between the main residence includes a one -story shed (Photograph 3). It has a wood foundation, plywood exterior, and corrugated metal roof. There are two entries, each entry is a cut plywood door on the east and west elevations. There is a small opening cut on the south elevation.

The east side of the property is comprised of open, undeveloped land with a dirt pile along the north side and modern building materials, refuse, tools, car parts, and overgrown shrubbery (Photograph 4).

There is an unpermitted mobile home on site currently being inhabited without permission, according to the current owner.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 5 24656 Mohr Drive

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
24656 Mohr Drive is an approximately 0.40-acre parcel developed with several buildings. It includes the main residence, a detached garage, an accessory dwelling, an agri cultural outbuilding, and four chicken pens. The property is fronted by a lawn and features a driveway to the garage to the north and a second, unpaved drive along the south elevation.

The main residence is a one -story building with a rectangular plan, cr oss-gable roof with jerkinhead details at the north and south ends, and stucco exterior (Photograph 5). The primary elevation features an asymmetrical form with a tall front gable. There is a louvered vent below the roofline and a central tripartite window with shutters at the north side and a picture window below the edge of the adjacent cross gable roof. Stone steps lead to the main entry at the corner of the south elevation.

The south elevation continues with a second large, picture window followed by a bow bay and a projecting bay. Most windows have been broken and feature aluminum awnings above (Photograph 6).

The rear, east elevation features a secondary entry accessed via a short concrete stair and ramp with window openings with aluminum awnings flanking each side. The north elevation features three window openings, all topped with aluminum awnings. All elevations feature rectangular wood louvered vents details at the roofline. The building is in poor condition. The windows have been broken and the building interior has been vandalized and stripped of fixtures.

The area north of the main residence includes a one -story detached garage (Photograph 7). It has a rectangular plan, front gable roof, and stucco exterior. It features the same rectangular wood louvered vent at the roofline as described on the main residence. The garage door is missing, and the interior has been vandalized and a portion on the south elevation wall is missing. The building is in poor condition.

The accessory dwelling is a one -story structure north of the main residence and east of the garage (Photograph 8). It has a rectangular plan and stucco exte rior. Its main entry is at the south elevation and is accessed via a concrete ramp. The exterior is otherwise indiscernible due to overgrown vegetation on all elevations.

The area east of the residential buildings is occupied by an agricultural outbuilding, four chicken coops, and several temporary structures similar to Tuff sheds (Photograph 9). The agricultural building is a one-story wood frame structure with a plyw ood and wood plank exterior and a flat corrugated metal roof. It is at the north end of the yard. It is in poor condition and has been subsumed on nearly every exterior surface by biogrowth.

Each of the four chicken coops is identical, evenly spaced, and features a linear plan. Each coop is wood beam construction with wire exterior, visible wood and wire interior partitions, and a sloped corrugated metal roof. As with the rest of the property, the coops have been overgrown with vegetation.

Other structures include non -permanent sheds, bird cages/shelters, and a covered hot tub. The property is vacant, overgrown, and appears to have been recently inhabited by squatters.

MOUNT EDEN HISTORY
24764 and 24656 and Mohr Drive are located in the Mount Eden neighborhood of Hayward. Originally part of Rancho San Lorenzo, it was founded by a group of farmers from Mount Eden, Kentucky, drawn to the region by the Gold Rush in 1850. The historic center of Mount Eden was around Telegraph Avenue (present-day Hesperian Boulevard) between Deport Road and Jackson Street (City of Hayward).

It was originally called Eden Township and was settled by large numbers of families of German and Danish descent, and was also known as “Germantown” or “Little Denmark”. Most early settlers City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 6 engaged in farming. In 1853 John Johnson started the manufacture of salt in the nearby salt marshes, eventually expanding to over 40 acres of salt marshes that operated until the mid -20th century (Hayward Area Historical Society 2023).

In 1852, Cornelius Mohr arrived to the area and by 1854 had saved enough money to purchase 440 acres of land and establish his family homestead, including the area now containing of 24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive. Mohr and then his son William farmed diversified row crops includin g tomatoes, sugar beets, wheat, and iris (Mohr Fry 2023). In the following years the community thrived and established churches like Eden Congregational Church at A and First Streets (National Register #07000788), Mt. Eden Cemetery at Depot Road (still ext ant), and The Wigman community building (demolished in 1961).

In the 1920s, farmland began to make way for residential development. By the mid -1920s, one-acre lots in “Mohrland” Mt. Eden were being advertised for “conveniences of the city, country life at its best” (Oakland Tribune 1927). Developments such as Mohrland Gardens and South Mohrland followed.

During that time, new waves of immigrants settled in Mount Eden, including large number of Japanese immigrants (City of Hayward 1990). In 1920 , Zenjuro Shibata expanded his Oakland -based nursery business to the area, and acquired 26 acres for new greenhouses, becoming the Mount Eden Greenhouse. Thereafter, in addition to agriculture and salt mining, Mount Eden was well-known for its flower industry (Hayward Area History 2023). Mostly run by Japanese immigrants, the nurseries were jeopardized by the internment of Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War II. Once the war was over, most nurseries were recovered, but dwindled in the following decades following development pressure.

Portions of Mount Eden were annexed by the City of Hayward in 1958. In the 1960s, land was acquired to establish Chabot College and the interstate system expanded to the area, including the construction of State Route 92 in 1964. By that time, most agricultural and nursery operations had ended and were supplanted by housing and suburban development. Additional unincorporated “islands” remaining from earlier annexations, including the area of 2476 4 and 24656 Mohr Drive, called “West Mohr Island,” became part of the City of Hayward between 2003 and 2009 (City of Hayward 2009). 24764 Mohr Drive

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
According to assessor data, 24764 Mohr Drive was reportedly constructed in 1925. Available deed records indicate that the property was first subdivided for development by the Mohr family in 1926 following William Mohr’s death in 1923, suggesting the house was constructed in 1926 and not 1925 (Oakland Tribune 1923). The property’s address appears to have been 26 178 Mohr Drive and changed to the current address in the mid-1950s. The first available historical aerial image from 1946 shows that the main residence was constructed by this time and had reached its present-day footprint, including the two -story rear add ition. The remainder of the parcel included several agricultural buildings with both rectangular and linear footprints that are no longer present. By 1955 available historical building permits show that the property was owned by Moulton T. Edmonds, a Mount Eden mail carrier. The next available historical aerial image from 1958 confirms that the property had remained largely that same during that period. By 1966, however, it appears that several of the outbuildings had been removed. Available historical permits confirm that a garage and chicken houses were demolished by Edmonds in 1960.1 The accessory dwelling building was constructed as a carport in 1962. The property appears to have remained la rgely unchanged in the following decades. It was

1 The historical record shows several instances where Moulton Edmonds name is recorded as Moulton Edwards.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 7 purchased by Robert and Roberta Pratt in the early 2000s and appears to have been the business address for a local trucking company. Historical aerials confirm that the property appears to have been used for some vehicle storage. In 2009 the carport was updated for an a ccessory dwelling (City of Hayward Permit 2009). The property was vacated in 2022. Since that time its condition has deteriorated considerably, as described above.
24656 Mohr Drive

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
Similar to 24764 Mohr Drive, 24656 Mohr Drive is list ed in assessor data as being constructed in 1925, but available deed records indicate that the property was first subdivided in 1926, suggesting the house dates to 1926. The property’s address appears to have changed to the current address in the 1950s. Th e first available historical aerial from 1946 confirms that the house, a linear building (likely a chicken house), and two accessory buildings were constructed at the east end of the lot by this time. By 1958, historical aerial photographs show additional outbuildings were on the property.

By the late 1950s the property was occupied by Lorraine and Russell Cazin. In 1960, an accidental fire killed their two toddler nieces who were napping in a structure on the property ( San Francisco Examiner 1960). In 1965, the property was listed for sale. By 1966, the property was owned by Better Homes Realty and was purchased by Cyril and Marie Nicholson by 1972 (City of Hayward Permit 1966,1972). A portion of the eastern end of the originally approximately one -acre parc el was subdivided and sold for the adjacent residential development in 1983 (Alameda County Assessor).

Historical aerial images from 1987 show that the extant chicken coops were constructed by that time (NETR 2023). According to available historical buildi ng permits the house has had its plumbing and electrical updated several times and received a new roof in 1993 (City of Hayward Permit 1993). In the 1990s, the property was occupied by Manuel Abad, who was raising chickens on the property (US Department of Agriculture 1993). Available historical street imagery also shows that the main residence had Tudor Revival timber detailing at the primary elevation that was removed sometime between 2011 and 2017. The property was sold by the Nicholsons to the current o wner in 2021 (Alameda County Assessor 2023). The property was vacated in 2022. Since that time its condition has deteriorated considerably, as described above.
24764 Mohr Drive

HISTORICAL RESOURCES EVALUATION
The subject property is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under any eligibility criteria due to a lack of historical or architectural significance.

Originally a portion of the Cornelius Mohr estate established in 1854, the property at 24764 Mohr Drive was first subdivid ed for development in 1926 and was typical of the transition of former agricultural land for semi-rural residential development. Research did not indicate that it was unique within this trend or associated with any important events in the history of the ci ty, region, state, or nation. The property is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.

Archival research failed to identify any persons associated with the property who were important to history. Though some fo rmer owners and occupants were identified, such as the Edmonds and the Pratts, research through newspapers and ancestry databases did not yield any information to suggest they made contributions significant to our past. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 8 The subject property exhibits some limited features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style including an asymmetrical façade, arched porch entry, and circular vents. It cannot, however, be c onsidered a strong example of the style and it does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. No architect could be identified and it does not appear to be the work of a master or possess high artistic value. Additionally, it has been altered over time, including a large two- story addition. The rest of the property has also been continuously updated with the addition, transformation, and removal of structures and outbuildings to respond to the needs of the owners and occupants. Finally, the property has deteriorated significantly in the recent past. Though integrity is distinct from condition, condition issues such as vandalism, fire, and exposure to elements have resulted in the loss of integrity of materials and workmanship. As a result, the property’s overall feeling and association as a twentieth century residential development is diminished. It is not, therefore, eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.

A review of available e vidence and records search results does not suggest 24764 Mohr Drive has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of Alameda County or the greater Bay Area, California, or the nation. It is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.

Based on the analysis presented above, there is no information to suggest the property possess historical significance or would be eligible as a historical resource pursuant to Article 11 of the Hayward Municipal Code.
24656 Mohr Drive

Originally a p ortion of the Cornelius Mohr estate established in 1854, the property at 24656 Mohr Drive was first subdivided for development in 1926 and was typical of the transition of former agricultural land for semi-rural residential development. Research did not indicate that it was unique within this trend or associated with any important events in the history of the city, region, state, or nation. The property is therefore recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1.

Archival research failed to identify any persons associated with the property who were important to history. Though some former owners and occupants were identified, such as the Cazins and the Nicholsons, research through newspapers and ancestry databases did not yield a ny information to suggest they made contributions significant to our past. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion B/2.

The subject property’s buildings do not exhibit any features of a particular architectural style. The main residence is no n-descript and associated agricultural outbuildings are utilitarian in design within minimal features. The main residence’s original Tudor Revival detailing was recently removed and the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.

The buildings also do not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value. In addition, the residence has several instances of vandalism leading to structural issue s, including the removal of several windows and their casings. As a result, the building has been exposed to weather elements and overgrowth resulting in loss of historic material. The property does not retain sufficient integrity as a semi-rural twentieth century development. The property is, therefore, recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C/3.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 9 A review of available evidence and records search results does not suggest 24656 Mohr Drive has yielded or has the potential to y ield information important to the prehistory or history of Alameda County or the greater Bay Area, California, or the nation. It is recommended ineligible for listing to the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion D/4.

Archaeological Resources
No archaeological resources were identified during the field survey. Ground visibility was poor with approximately 15 percent exposure. Leaf litter , modern refuse , and modern structures obscured surface visibility of both parcels (Photograph 1). Overgrown landscaping and modern developments (including the residential buildings and associated accessory buildings ) obscured approximately 85 percent of the project site’s ground (Photograph 9). Visible soil within the project site consisted of compacted light to medium brown, fine-grained, silt loam (Photograph 10). The soils observed within the project site appeared to be fill soils that were likely imported when the residences were first constructed. A tree line along the northern property line of 24 764 Mohr Drive was also noted . The project site has been heavily disturbed from previous construction and the subsequent occupation of the two residences.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The impact analysis included here is organized based on the cultural resources thresholds included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form:
• Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
• Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
• Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Threshold A broadly refers to historical resources. To more clearly differentiate between archaeological and built environment resources, we have chosen to limit analysis under Threshold A to built environment resources. Archaeological resources, including those that may be considered historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 and those that may be considered unique archaeological resources pursuant to Section 21083.2, are considered under Threshold B.

Historical Built Environment Resources
The field survey and background research identified two built-environment historical resources in the project site, 24764 and 24656 Mohr Drive. As detailed above , the resource s were determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR for lack of architec tural or historical significance. As such, the properties do not qualify as historical resources and their demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the findings of this investigation, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 10 Historical and Unique Archaeological Resources
This assessment did not identify any archaeological resources or archaeological deposits within the project site. The project site has been heavily disturbed due to the construction of the two residences within the project site, and occupant use since at least 1946 . Additionally, no resources have been previously recorded within the project site or a 0.5 -mile radius surrounding the project site. The absence of substantial prehistoric or historic -period archaeological remains within the immediate vicinity, along with the existing level of disturbance in the project site, suggest there is a low potential for encountering intact subsurface archaeological deposits. However, the lack of surface evidence of archaeological materials does not preclude their subsurface existence. The proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval, listed below, which requires that activities cease and the City be notified should cultural materials be identified during construction .

With adherence to this Standard Condition of Approval, Rincon recommends a finding of a less than significant impact to archaeological resources under CEQA.

Standard Condition of Approval
If human remains, archaeological resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts , or paleontological resources are discovered during construction or excavation, the following procedures shall be followed: Construction and/or excavation activities shall cease immediately and the Planning Division shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to determine whether any such materials are significant prior to resuming groundbreaking construction activities. Standardized procedure for evaluation accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.f and 151236.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Human Remains
No human remains are known to be present within the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from bei ng granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. With adherence to existing regulations, Rincon recommends a finding of less than significant impact to human remains under CEQA.

Should you have any questions concerning this study, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Rachel Bilchak, BA, BS, RA
Archaeologist
Courtney Montgomery, MA
Archaeologist/Project Manager
City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 11 JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP
Architectural Historian Project Manager
Steven Treffers, MHP
Cultural Resources Director
Attachments
Attachment 1 Figures and Photographs
Attachment 2 CHRIS Records Search Results
Attachment 3 SLF Results
Attachment 4 DPR Forms
City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 12 References
Ancestry.com
2023 U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995. Accessed July 2023, https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2469/.

City of Hayward
Var. Building Permits – APN 441 -0074-030-00 and 441 -0074-009-00 1990 Mt. Eden Neighborhood Plan: Hayward, California, July 17. Accessed online July 2023, https://www.hayward-
ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/MtEdenPoliciesStrategies.pdf. 2009 Mt Eden Annexation Phase II Project Final Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration, November.

Hayward Area Historical Society
N.d. “The Story of Mount Eden,” Accessed online July 2023. https://www.haywardareahistory.org/mount-eden.

Mohr Fry Ranches
N.d. “Family History,” Accessed online July 2023, http://www.mohrfry.com/history.html.

NETR Online
2023 “Historic Aerials.” Various historic aerials and topographic maps of the project site.

Accessed July 2023, https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Oakland Tribune
1923 “Funeral Arranged for Crash Victims,” August 8. Accessed via Newspapers.com July 2023,
https://www.newspapers.com/image/98834797/?terms=%22william%20mohr%22&m atch=1.
1927 Ad. June 4. Accessed via Newspapers.com July 2023, https://www.newspapers.com/image/95531637/?terms=%22mohrland%22&match=1.

San Francisco Examiner
1960 “2 Sisters Embracing Die in Fire,” October 2. Accessed via Newspapers.com July 2023, https://www.newspapers.com/image/458935776/?terms=%2224656%20mohr%22& match=1.

United States Department of Agriculture
1993 National Poultry Improvement Plan. Accessed online July 2023, https://books.google.com/books?id=Mb7-
_JorbpIC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=%2224656+mohr%22&source=bl&ots=BUc0PUfxY m&sig=ACfU3U1IQ96CMJHjBDdJDZjtJROREy1Sog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib0sqq_ 4SAAxXMODQIHZ6eAl84FBDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=%2224656%20mohr%22&f= false.

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 13 United States Geologic Survey
2023 TopoView of the project site. Accessed July 2023.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.01/-100.06.

Attachment 1
Figures and Photographs

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-1
Figure 1 Project Location Map

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-2
Figure 2 Regional Location Map

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-3
Photograph 1 24764 Mohr Drive, Primary Residence, Camera Facing East

Photograph 2 24764 Mohr Drive, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Camera Facing North

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-4
Photograph 3 24764 Mohr Drive, Shed Near Accessory Dwelling Unit, Camera Facing Northwest

Photograph 4 24764 Mohr Drive, Tree-Line and Refuse, Camera Facing Southeast

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-5
Photograph 5 24656 Mohr Drive, Primary Residence, Camera Facing Northeast

Photograph 6 24656 Mohr Drive, Aluminum Awnings at South Elevation, Camera Facing Northeast

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-6
Photograph 7 24656 Mohr Drive, Detached Garage, Camera Facing East

Photograph 8 24656 Mohr Drive, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Camera Facing North

City of Hayward
Cultural Resources Assessment for the 24764 & 24656 Mohr Drive Residential Project 1-7
Photograph 9 24656 Mohr Drive, Chicken Coops Located in Rear, Refuse and Tall Vegetation Obscure Ground Visibility, Camera Facing East

Photograph 10 24656 Mohr Drive, Visible Soil in Outbuilding, View East

Attachment 2
CHRIS Records Search Results
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs #19-07843
S-000848 1977 A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and Northern California Coastal Zone and
Offshore Areas, Vol. III, Socioeconomic
Conditions, Chapter 7: Historical &
Archaeological Resources
The Anthropology
Laboratory, Sonoma State
College; Winzler & Kelly
Consulting Engineers
David A. FredricksonAgency Nbr -
Contract AA550-CT6-
52 S-009462 1977 Identification and Recording of Prehistoric Petroglyphs in Marin and Related Bay Area
Counties
San Francisco State
University
Teresa Ann Miller 07-000323, 21-000087, 21-000376,
21-000378, 21-000379, 21-000380,
21-000381, 21-000382, 21-000383,
21-000384, 21-000386, 21-000387,
21-000388, 21-000389, 21-000390,
21-000391, 21-000392, 21-000393,
21-000394, 21-000395, 21-000396,
21-000397, 21-000398, 21-000399,
21-000400, 21-000401, 21-000402,
21-000546, 23-000434, 23-000789,
23-000790, 49-000629, 49-000785,
49-000787
S-025618 2001 Cultural Resource Evaluations of Five (5) Proposed Telecommunication Sites -- Nos.

PL-389-01, PL-902-01, PL-903-01, PL-946-01
and SF-367-01 -- located in Alameda and
Solano Counties, California (letter report)
Archeo-Tec Inc.Allen G. Pastron 01-000042, 01-000091, 48-000049Submitter - BMI Project No. 01S-660;
Voided - S-29534
S-025618a 2001 Historical and Cultural Resource
Assessment, Proposed Telecommunications
Facility, Cal Auto Glass, Site No. PL-903-01,
6401 Shattuck Avenue, Oakland, California.
(letter report)
Brown & Mills, Inc.Allen G. Pastron and R.

Keith Brown

Page 1 of 3 ends

Hayward City CouncilJanuary 23, 2024

Hayward City Council
January 23, 2024