Exhibit B-1 Hercules Skelly Residential Project Final ISMND_ISMND_Appendices COMBINED — Hercules City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 1 of 6)

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Skelly Residential Project
City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California
Prepared for:

City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
510.799.8248
Contact: Tim Rood, Community Development Director
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Date: August 29, 2022

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 - Responses to Comments................................................................................................3-1 Section 3: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - Changes to the Draft IS/MND.........................................................................................3-1 Appendix A–Exhibit

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
Although not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hercules has prepared the following responses to comments received on the Skelly Residential Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND). The Draft IS/MND and the Responses to Comments, which are included in this document, comprise the Final IS/MND for use by the City of Hercules in its review and consideration of the proposed Skelly Residential Project (proposed project). All public comments regarding the Draft IS/MND are included for consideration by the City of Hercules.

This document is organized into two sections:
• Section 1—Introduction.
• Section 2—Responses to Written Comments: Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft IS/MND. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 3—Errata: Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft IS/MND, which have been incorporated.

The Final IS/MND includes the following contents:
• Draft IS/MND (provided under separate cover)
• Draft IS/MND appendices (provided under separate cover) • Responses to Written Comments and Errata (Section 2 and 3 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (provided under separate cover)

3.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................... CDFW California Department of Toxic Substances Control .........................................................................DTSC Local Agencies
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ..................................FC DISTRICT Individuals
Avila, Aurora ....................................................................................................................................AVILA Gilbert, Wil and Scheran..............................................................................................................GILBERT Khuu, Ciera ..................................................................................................................................... KHUU Rettig, Tom.....................................................................................................................................RETTIG

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
Although a lead agency is not required to provide written responses to comments on proposed Negative Declarations (NDs) or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Hercules has evaluated the comments received on the proposed Skelly Residential Project (proposed project) Draft IS/MND and has elected to provide responses to the following comments. None of the comments received results in the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND or to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Chambers, Andrew@Wildlife <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 8:26 AM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Cc: Battaglia, Michelle@Wildlife <[email protected]> Subject: Skelly Residential Project - SCH# 2022070045
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Todd,
CDFW has reviewed this project and has the following statement to provide to the City and project proponent:

Notably on the Site Plan (Exhibit 4) on .pdf page #23 of the IS/MND, and found elsewhere, the project as designed would involve alteration and potential impacts to an ephemeral tributary to Pinole Creek, including to the bank and vegetation hydrologically dependent thereof. This alteration of the ephemeral tributary would require notification of the project to CDFW under Fish and Game Code section 1602.

CDFW is requesting that the City, as lead agency, require an application for a Standard Agreement be submitted for the project (which can be done online and found at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Environmental-Review/LSA/Agreement-Types#55230748- standard-agreement) by the project proponent as a basis of approval of the IS/MND.

CDFW’s Habitat Conservation Unit found it best to address this statement as an email instead of a formal comment letter. If any questions arise or further discussions are needed, feel free to contact me regarding this project.

Thank you,
-Andy
Andrew O. Chambers
Environmental Scientist
Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Unit
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
CDFW

Page 1 of 2 ends

1 Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 266-2878
CDFW

Page 1 of 2 ends

City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Response to CDFW-1
The commenter discusses the on-site ephemeral tributary to Pinole Creek and the relevant CDFW notification requirements if the drainage feature would be impacted because of project construction. As stated in the Project Description (pages 1 and 2 of the Draft IS/MND), the drainage would not be graded or developed; it would be avoided in its entirety as part of the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project is required to follow Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2 to avoid the on-site aquatic features and their associated habitats, which would include notification to the CDFW under Fish and Game Code Section 1602.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
July 29, 2022
Mr. Tim Rood
Community Development Director
City of Hercules
111 Civic Dr
Hercules, CA 94547
[email protected]

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT – DATED JULY 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022070045)
Dear Mr. Rood:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Skelly Residential Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND:

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

DTSC

Page 1 of 3 ends

1 2
Mr. Tim Rood
July 29, 2022

Page 2 ends

2. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition ,and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

3. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

4. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3582 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brian McAloon
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC

Page 2 of 3 ends

3 4
5 Mr. Tim Rood
July 29, 2022

Page 3 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
DTSC

Page 3 of 3 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Response to DTSC-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response to DTSC-2
This comment requests a discussion of the potential for the proposed project to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances during construction and operation.

Accidental release of hazardous materials and/or substances is discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the proposed project, which evaluated the site’s potential for Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)
1 to occur on-site based on review of environmental regulatory and historic records and site reconnaissance. It was determined in the Phase I ESA that there are no RECs on-site and the report did not recommend any further assessment of the property.

The potential for release of hazards materials during construction and operation of the proposed project is discussed in the Draft IS/MND. Construction activities and use of hazardous materials (such as gasoline, oils, or fluids from construction equipment) would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances set forth by California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), DTSC, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Contra Costa Environmental Health Department, and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District. In addition, the applicant is required to retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to remove and dispose of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paints (LBPs) that could be present in the existing structures in accordance with federal and State regulations.

Response to DTSC-3
This comment is related to demolition of on-site structures and the potential for release of hazards chemicals such as ACMs and LBP.

As discussed above, demolition of on-site structures would be conducted in accordance with federal and State regulations, including California Health and Safety Code Section 19827.5 (Visual Inspection and Sampling). All materials containing LBP shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in 1 A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property.

City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Responses to Written Comments Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Construction Standard, Title 8, California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. All materials containing asbestos shall be handled and removed by qualified professionals in accordance with applicable regulations, including Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Regulation 11, Rule 2; Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66261.24; Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1; and Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 745.

Response to DTSC-4
The comment states that any imported soils should be evaluated prior to their use as backfill material.

As documented in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, of the Draft IS/MND and as required by MM GEO1, the proposed project must comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix D of the Draft IS/MND). The Geotechnical Investigation Report requires that all imported soil shall be approved by the Project Soil Engineer. The proposed project would comply with appropriate California environmental regulations and policies regulating hazardous materials, including the import and export of soil associated with the proposed project.

Any imported fill would meet applicable governmental requirements related to chemical composition.

Response to DTSC-5
The commenter recommends evaluation of agricultural or other soils that may contain pesticides per DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance.

A review of available historic aerial imagery does not show any evidence that the project area has been used for agricultural or other activities over the past 80 years. No evidence has been presented to indicate that organochlorinated pesticides have been used in the project area.

From: Joe Smithonic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022, 10:42 AM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Cc: Gus Amirzehni <[email protected]>
Subject: Sub 9606, Skelly Residential Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mr. Rood,
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) dated July 5, 2022, for Subdivision 9606 located at 215 Skelly (APN 404-020-012) in the City of Hercules (City). We submit the following comments:

1. Section 1.4 of the IS/MND identifies the development’s northwest bioretention facility as a detention basin and Section 2.10(c)(iii) states that the installation of a bioretention facility will “ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions,” implying that the basin facility is intended for dual purposes – clean water and flood control. The FC District does not recommend the use of bioretention areas (C.3 facilities) sized to meet Contra Costa Clean Water Program C.3 requirements for mitigating peak flows. These C.3 facilities have not been proven to perform as peak flow mitigation measures under design storm flow conditions for the 10-year storm and above. They do not account for the saturated condition of soils that could precede a 10- year design storm. They have not been in use long enough to provide operational experience that they will continue to perform as designed and be maintained properly.

C.3 facilities that are proposed to be used to mitigate peak flows should be analyzed in a way that ignores the above surface storage volume required by the C.3 facilities sizing criteria. Further, we recommend that C.3 facilities be analyzed using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. We recommend that Section 2.10(c)(iii) of the IS/MND be revised to reflect this comment.

2. The FC District recommends that environmental concern number 2.10(c)(iii) be revised to “less than significant with mitigation incorporated.” The City should require the developer to submit detailed hydrology and hydraulic calculations to the City that demonstrate the proposed facilities’ ability to mitigate post-project peak flows to preproject levels and that demonstrate the adequacy of the downstream system and FC District

Page 1 of 2 ends

2 3
4 1
Refugio Creek, which was noted in Section 2.10 of the IS/MND as an existing system that experiences flooding. If the calculations cannot demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed and existing storm drain systems, the City should require the developer to construct improvements that increase capacity at any deficient sections of the storm drain systems, as a mitigation measure for Section 2.10(c)(iii). We defer review of the local drainage to the City. However, the FC District is available to provide technical review under our Fee-for-Service program.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND for Subdivision 9606 and welcome continued coordination with the City. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
Joe Smithonic | Civil Engineer
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
p: 925.313.2348 | f: 925.313.2333
e: [email protected] | cccpublicworks.org
FC District

Page 2 of 2 ends

4 CONT
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-15
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Local Agencies
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC DISTRICT) Response to FC DISTRICT-1
The comment provides introductory remarks and does not raise any environmental issues. No response is required.

Response to FC DISTRICT-2
The commentor raises questions regarding the analysis of C.3 facilities. The proposed bioretention area would not be used for flood control purposes. Based on preliminary analysis of the downstream storm drain outfall capacity, the proposed project’s additional flows would not adversely impact the downstream storm drain system. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event on-site detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. Per Section 5-8.050 of the Municipal Code, a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria of the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook must be submitted as part of every application for a development project prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

In addition to C.3 facilities, and consistent with the Municipal Code policies and code requirements, the proposed project would also be required to install stormwater control facilities to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Response to FC DISTRICT-3
For clarification purposes, Impact 2.10(c)(iii) has been revised to reflect the responses above. See Section 3, Errata.

Response to FC DISTRICT-4
As discussed, above, detailed hydrology and hydraulic calculations would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permit. Per General Plan Program 10a, the City would ensure that adequate drainage facilities and pollution prevention and control infrastructure and built to accommodate the increase in runoff from newly developed areas. If necessary, the City would require the applicant to construct improvements that increase capacity at any deficient sections of the City’s storm drain system. This is a requirement for consistency with the General Plan and will be included as a project condition of approval. Compliance with existing policies and regulations is mandatory and is not considered a mitigation measure. No additional mitigation is necessary.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: AURORA AVILA <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>; Erin LaFlamme <[email protected]> Subject: Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Rood,
Per the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Skelly Residential Project here are my concerns :
1) Hopefully this construction will not coincide with the upcoming San Pablo Bridge Project. Traffic would be impacted even more.
2) There already is a serious amount of traffic that uses Skelly and most cars exceed the speed limit.

There should be speed bumps installed on Skelly.
3) On the corner of Pearce & Skelly a Stop sign should be installed by the end of construction due to the extra traffic coming out of the new project.
4) With all the heavy machinery and large trucks and equipment, Skelly will be "beat-up". The builder or the City needs to anticipate this and make provisions for road repair and/or re-asphalt Skelly upon completion of the project.

Please advise how these concerns will be handled.
--
Aurora Avila
112 Skelly
AVILA

Page 1 of 1 ends

1 2
3 4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Individuals
Aurora Avila (AVILA)
Response to AVILA-1
The commenter is concerned about traffic generated by the proposed project and the upcoming San Pablo Bridge Project, should they occur concurrently. This comment will be part of the record for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Response to AVILA-2
The commenter states that there is currently a high level of traffic on Skelly and most cars exceed the speed limit. The commenter requests that a speed bump be installed on Skelly.

Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based Level of Service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. Automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measure of traffic congestion, is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. However, an LOS analysis was prepared as part of the project Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H of the Draft IS/MND) to demonstrate consistency with the General Plan.

The findings of the Traffic Impact Study are discussed in detail in Section 2.17, Transportation, of the Draft IS/MND. The proposed project is expected to generate 377 total daily trips, including 28 net new AM peak-hour trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new PM peak-hour trips (24 in, 14 out). Under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Projects scenarios, both of the study intersections (Hercules Avenue/Skelly, and Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue) would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the AM peak-hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the PM peak-hour. The proposed project would be consistent with LOS standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP).

The proposed project also includes various traffic calming measures along Skelly, including an on-site bump-out, a bump-out at project entry, and an 8-foot bump-out approximately 500 feet east of the project site. Bump-outs reduce driving speed by narrowing the crossing distance for pedestrians and decreasing the curb radii, therefore causing drivers to make slower turns. An exhibit showing these measures is attached as Attachment A. The request for additional traffic calming measures has been noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Response to AVILA-3
The commenter requests that a stop sign be installed on the corner of Pearce and Skelly by the end of project construction. This comment is noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Response to AVILA-4
The commenter states that construction equipment and trucks would contribute to pavement deterioration on Skelly, and requests that the City and/or applicant provide pavement repair upon completion of the proposed project. This comment is noted for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 2
3 GILBERT

Page 1 of 1 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Wil and Scheran Gilbert (GILBERT)
Response to GILBERT-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response to GILBERT-2
The commenter asks if the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road (Parcel C) would be blocked from pedestrians and non-emergency vehicles, and if so, how would it be enforced.

According to the applicant, the EVA road would be usable in the event of an emergency by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District. It could also be used for resident emergency evacuation. There would be at least one gate erected across the EVA road in accordance with Fire District requirements. There may be gates both along the other end of the EVA road (on Rosti) and the proposed neighborhood.

The proposed project would comply with the Fire District’s requirements for the exact design and location of the gates. The EVA is not intended to be used for pedestrian access.

Response to GILBERT-3
The commenter asks the definition of wetlands and bioretention.

Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods of time during the year. Wetlands in California are protected by federal and State laws, regulations, and policies that prevent further degradation and destruction. The wetlands on Parcel B would not be graded or developed; they would be preserved in their entirety as part of the proposed project and would support the comprehensive stormwater management strategy for the proposed development. As part of the stormwater management strategy, Parcel B would also contain a 16,957-square-foot bioretention area. A bioretention basin is a landscaping feature, a depression that collects stormwater runoff into a designated area where it is subsequently filtered through the area until it is purified. Mulch, special soils, and sand beds all filter and percolate stormwater to rid it of harmful substances and excessive nutrients, while an underdrain system removes the water once it has been treated so that it can be usefully applied to nearby planted areas.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Ciera Khuu <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Subject: 215 Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Rood,
I'm writing to submit my comments during this public review period for the proposed residential build project at 215 Skelly.

I've attended the informational meeting by the developer to learn more about this project and have had a chance to skim through the findings from the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study. While I'm uncertain of some of the findings due to the low number of data points regarding traffic impact and such. I'm writing to express my concern and hope to impress upon you the importance of keeping some of the eucalyptus trees that reside on this project site. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration states "approximately 76 existing trees" will be remove to clear the site for construction. These eucalyptus trees have dated back even before 1960 and are probably close to 100 or more years old. These trees have existed and spans multigenerations and will last beyond our time. They provide shelter and protection from wind, pollution, and especially from noise. Specifically, as shown in the picture below, these trees shield the neighborhood from the loud train noise coming from the railroad track. I can see the beautiful and majestic canopies from my bedroom, I can see them and the blue sky through my bathroom window as I am coming out of the shower, I can see them first thing as I emerge from my front door to go to work each morning, and I can see them again at the end of the day as I turn onto the street to my home.

I know that I'm not the only one with these sentiments and that these trees represent and symbolize much more than just vegetation. It is understandable that any site should be prep for construction, but it doesn't necessitate the removal of all the trees. I'm asking the developer to keep some trees that are critical in protecting the area and neighborhood from noise and pollution arising from the railroad track. Sustainable development is definitely doable, they can always design with slight modifications to incorporate salvaging these trees into their residential projects.

KHUU

Page 1 of 2 ends

1 2
3 4
Respectfully,
Ciera K.

I'm asking for your's and the city councils' considerations with this topic as you have the power to make a difference to our community. Developers come and go, they only look at the finances, but we are the people in the community that are impacted by these decisions and we have to live and see it every day.

Thank you so much for your time and considerations.

KHUU

Page 2 of 2 ends

5 City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Ciera Khuu (KHUU)
Response to KHUU-1
The commenter requests that the applicant preserve more of the existing trees on-site. The commenter notes the proposed number of trees to be removed (76) and states that the eucalyptus trees have existed since before 1960 and could possibly be 100 years old.

The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City of Hercules through Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 15, Removal of Mature Trees. As detailed in MM BIO-3, the applicant would adhere to the requirements of the tree ordinance which includes a submittal of a Tree Replacement Plan to the City prior to the removal of trees and/or prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit. The Tree Replacement Plan shall include a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for City-protected trees impacted by project construction.

It is also worth noting that of the 95 mature trees studied in the Arborist Report (Appendix B), 28 are identified to be in poor condition and are likely to fail, are in decline, or are in poor health. In addition, the applicant is actively working with neighbors and the Project Arborist to preserve more existing trees.

This comment is noted for consideration of the Planning Commission and City Council.

Response to KHUU-2
The commenter states that the trees on-site provide protection from wind, pollution, and noise from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line south of the project site. See Response to KHUU-1.

This comment is noted.

Response to KHUU-3
The commenter describes the view of the on-site trees available from her home.

Although private views are outside the purview of CEQA, the applicant is actively working with neighbors and the Project Arborist to identify additional trees that can be preserved. As discussed in Response to KHUU-1, the applicant must also prepare a Tree Replacement Plan. This comment is noted.

Response to KHUU-4
This comment summarizes the points discussed above. See Response to KHUU-1. This comment is noted.

Response to KHUU-5
The commenter asks the City decision-makers to consider the impacts to existing on-site trees. See Response to KHUU-1. This comment is noted.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Tom Rettig <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 2:05 PM
To: Timothy Rood <[email protected]>
Subject: Skelly Residential Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a resident at 151 Skelly and have concerns about the noise levels of the project. • What will the penalties be for operating outside the hours of 7am-7pm? There does not seem to be any incentive for the developer to operate within these hours other than this document saying they will. Without repercussions, this does not seem enforceable. • With regards to enforcement, what agency will be responsible for shutting down operations that begin before 7am or continue beyond 7pm? Again, if this is not enforceable, there is no incentive for the developer to operate within the stated times. • Why is acceptable for the project to even operate on Saturday? For most of the residents, that is our day off and it is unreasonable to ask that we give up the peace we enjoy in this neighborhood during our time to relax. At a minimum, there should be no large machinery operating on Saturday or traveling the streets.

I am not suggesting there should not be any development, but I purchased my home just over a year ago because it was on a short quiet street. I am not fond of the idea that the neighborhood is being extended off Skelly. At a minimum, I don’t think it should intrude on the calm that we enjoy in our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Tom Rettig
151 Skelly
Hercules, CA 94547
[email protected]
1 2
3 4
RETTIG

Page 1 of 1 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Written Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 2-31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Tom Rettig (RETTIG)
Response to RETTIG-1
The commenter asks how the noise restriction hours as noted in the Draft IS/MND would be enforced.

The City’s existing noise ordinance Section 13-31.300 gives the Community Development Director the authority to impose limitations on construction hours and is enforced by the Police Department.

Limitations on construction hours for the proposed project would be included as part of the development agreement for the proposed project.

In addition, as discussed in Section 2.13, Noise, of the Draft IS/MND, MM NOI-1 includes a restriction on construction activities to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday) as well as best management noise reduction techniques and practices to ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. As part of MM NOI-1, the construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establish reasonable measures necessary to correct the problem. The construction contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site. City staff shall follow up with the contractor or the disturbance coordinator if staff becomes aware that mitigation measures were not being met.

The City Council could also choose to negotiate additional restrictions on construction activity with the developer as part of the development agreement.

Response to RETTIG-2
The commenter asks who would be responsible for enforcing MM NOI-1. See Response to RETTIG-1 Response to RETTIG-3
The commenter states that large construction machinery should not operate on Saturdays. This comment is noted for consideration of Planning Commission and City Council.

Response to RETTIG-4
The comment provides closing remarks. No response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix A:

Exhibit

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PEARCE ROAD
ROSTI
PAVON
SKELLY
215 SKELLY
PROJECT SITE 8' OFFSITE BUMP-OUT

BUMP-OUT AT PROJECT ENTRY ON SKELL

ONSITE BUMP-OUT ALONG TRAIL EXTENSION

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FCD & WCD

NEIGHBORHOOD

CONNECTION

BAY TRAIL

CONNECTION

PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
C6.0
F:\3204\ACAD\TM\C6.0-TRAFFIC CALMIN PLAN.DWG

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
215 SKELLY - SUBDIVISION 9606

CITY OF HERCULES CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 40' DATE: APRIL 2022
0 40 80 120 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
SHEET NO.

LEGEND
Y

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec03-00 Errata.docx SECTION 3: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft IS/MND for the Skelly Residential Project.

These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

3.1 - Changes to the Draft IS/MND
Section 1.4: Project Description

Page 4 ends

Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site.

Section 2.3: Air Quality

Page 33 ends

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet of
landscaping on Parcel D (about one-eighth of the
Parcel), which would serve to reduce treat
stormwater runoff and would include the planting of
shade trees; hence, it would also reduce the urban
heat island effect.

Section 2.10: Hydrology and Water Quality

Page 103 ends

The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, including the installation of landscaping and a bioretention area and stormwater control facilities, to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event onsite detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

City of Hercules—Skelly Residential Project
Errata Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/Final ISMND/21180006 Sec03-00 Errata.docx

Page 105 ends

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Section 2.18: Utilities and Service Systems

Page 138 ends

The proposed project would obtain water from the EBMUD. The proposed project’s wastewater would be collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by the JPA. Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site. Solid Waste services would be provided by Republic Services.

Electric power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E.

Page 140 ends

Stormwater would drain into a detention basin bioretention facility at the northwest corner of the project site. This is required given the proposed project would involve the creation of more than 10,000 square feet of net new impervious surface. Runoff from proposed impervious surfaces would be directed to the bioretention areas, where a water quality treatment process would begin. Bioretention areas would remove pollutants by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. A more detailed hydrology/hydraulic analysis will be provided with the final project design documents to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit. The analysis will be prepared using a hydrograph produced by or accepted by the FC District. In the event onsite detention is required, an underground storage system would be proposed under the bioretention area to avoid adverse impacts to the proposed site plan. The proposed stormwater control system would be designed to meet applicable County and local regulations, and would be reviewed by the City. In addition, all cities within Contra Costa County are required to implement surface water control standards for projects in compliance with Provision C.3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES Permit No. R2- 201500049. The Contra Costa County Clean Water Program created a C.3 Guidebook for the implementation of C.3 requirements. As a result of planned drainage treatment features, impacts would be less than significant.

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
DRAFT
Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California
Prepared for:

City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
510.799.8248
Contact: Robert Reber, Community Development Director
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Report Date: July 5, 2022

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................v Section 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................1

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

1.2 - Project Location................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 - Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3.1 - Land Use and Zoning .............................................................................................. 2

1.4 - Project Description............................................................................................................ 2

1.4.1 - Project Phasing....................................................................................................... 4

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals..................................................................................... 5

1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document....................................................................................... 5 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation...............................................19

2.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 27

2.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................... 30

2.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................... 55

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................... 67

2.6 Energy......................................................................................................................... 74

2.7 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................... 80

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 87

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................. 96

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................... 101

2.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 107

2.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................... 111

2.13 Noise......................................................................................................................... 113

2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 124

2.15 Public Services.......................................................................................................... 126

2.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 130

2.17 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 132

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... 138

2.19 Wildfire..................................................................................................................... 143

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 146 Section 3: List of Preparers.......................................................................................................149 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Supporting Information Biological Resources Supporting Information
B.1 - Database Search Results
B.2 - Biological Resources Analysis Report
B.3 - Arborist Report
Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Geology and Soils Supporting Information
D.1 - Geotechnical Investigation
D.2 - Paleontological Records Search
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Table of Contents Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iv FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Noise Supporting Information
Public Services Supporting Information
Transportation Analysis
List of Tables
Table 1: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures...................................32 Table 2: Construction Emissions............................................................................................................38 Table 3: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)......................................................................................39 Table 4: Project DPM Construction Emissions ......................................................................................43 Table 5: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk Calculations...............................................................44 Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction—Unmitigated ..................48 Table 7: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction........................50 Table 8: Odor Screening Distances........................................................................................................52 Table 9: Annual Project Energy Consumption.......................................................................................75 Table 10: Construction GHG Emissions.................................................................................................89 Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions...................................................................................................90 Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update...............................................................93 Table 13: Existing Traffic Noise Model Results Summary....................................................................109 Table 14: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments in the City of Hercules...........................................................................................................................115 Table 15: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary.................................................................................120 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................................7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................9 Exhibit 3a: Site Photographs.................................................................................................................11 Exhibit 3b: Site Photographs.................................................................................................................13 Exhibit 4: Site Plan.................................................................................................................................15 Exhibit 5: Typical Planting Plan..............................................................................................................17 Exhibit 6: Rendering of Entry Street Scene from Skelly ........................................................................23 Exhibit 7: Visual Simulation of View from San Pablo Avenue ...............................................................25 Exhibit 8: Habitat Map ..........................................................................................................................65 City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions v Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACTM Airborne Toxics Control Measure
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQP Air Quality Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BRA Biological Resources Analysis
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCTA Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHL California Historic Landmarks List
CHPS California Native Plant Society
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration vi FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CRA Cultural Resource Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBR Daily Breathing Rate
DNL day/night average sound level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC Emissions Factors model
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
EVA Emergency Vehicle Access
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information System
gpd gallons per day
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HI hazard index
HOA Homeowner’s Association
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations FirstCarbon Solutions vii Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx HPD Hercules Police Department
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in/sec inch per second
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JPA Joint Powers Authority
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt-hours
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night noise level
Leq equivalent sound level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Lmax maximum noise/sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MIR Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MM Mitigation Measure
MMBtu British Thermal Units
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MW megawatts
MWh megawatt-hours
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
ND Negative Declaration
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Air Pollution
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Acronyms and Abbreviations Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration viii FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PFC perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PUC Public Utilities Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
REL Reference Exposure Level
ROG reactive organic gases
RS-L Residential Single-Family Low Density
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutant
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ traffic analysis zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USACE United States Army Corp of Engineers
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WCCUSD West Contra Costa Unified School District
WEF Wildlife Exclusion Fencing
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Skelly Residential Project in the City of Hercules, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Hercules has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the lead agency in the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. The intended use of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public, and identify mitigation measures that can feasibly reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response, and Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is in the City of Hercules, in Contra Costa County, California (Exhibit 1). The 7.44-acre project site is located at 215 Skelly and is bound by single-family homes to the north and east; Pinole Creek and two single-family homes located on separate lots to the west; and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line to the south (Exhibit 2). The project site is associated with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 404-020-012. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mare Island, California 7.5-minute Topographical Quadrangle Map, Land Grant: Pinole (Martinez).

1.3 - Environmental Setting
The project site has been partially developed with structures as early as 1902. The site currently contains a single-family residence, 58 horse paddocks, a permitted 2,400-square-foot storage building, miscellaneous outbuildings, and a large metal clad shed that appear to be an abandoned relic of the site’s previous use as a farm. Various pieces of mechanical equipment, a large tank, miscellaneous furniture, and piles of mulch, wood debris, and construction debris are strewn throughout the site (Exhibit 3a and 3b). The ground cover on-site consists of grass to waist-high vegetation, various mature and small trees and shrubs, and degraded asphaltic concrete and gravel driveways.

Two seasonal wetlands, comprising approximately 0.034 acres, are located along the northern boundary of the project site adjacent to an old horse stall and paddock. Furthermore, the project site has a 0.10-acre perennial drainage feature along the southern boundary. These three features City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx would not be graded or developed; they would be preserved in their entirety as part of the proposed project and would support the comprehensive stormwater management strategy for the proposed development.
1 There are currently several utilities and easements on-site:
• an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) easement along the northeast portion of the site;
• a cell tower and a 10-foot access easement on the southeast portion of the site; and • a 40-foot Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) gas easement on the southeast corner of the site.

Surrounding land uses include single-family homes (north and east); the BNSF rail line, the Pinole Senior Center Building, and undeveloped land (south); and Pinole Creek and two single-family homes (west).

1.3.1 - Land Use and Zoning
The City of Hercules General Plan2 and the Hercules Zoning Map3 designate the project site as Residential Single-Family Low Density (RS-L). The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban single-family subdivisions. The RS-L designation allows for two to seven units per acre and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The minimum parcel size under the RS-L designation is 6,000 square feet, unless a smaller lot size is allowed with an approved development plan. With the approval of a Zoning Amendment and Planned Development Plan, the proposed project would be permitted to deviate from its zoning district standards in order to accommodate housing units within the site’s allowed General Plan density.

1.4 - Project Description
The applicant is proposing the development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 single-family residential lots on the approximately 7.44-acre project site (Exhibit 4). Development of the proposed project would involve the removal of approximately 76 existing trees, existing vegetation, and existing structures currently on the project site.

The proposed project would divide the project site into seven separate parcels (Parcels A-G) and 40 single-family residential lots. The residential lots would range from approximately 3,983 square feet to 6,880 square feet.

The proposed square footage and uses for the seven parcels are described as follows:
1 Olberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis Report for the Skelly Property, City of Hercules, Contra Costa County, California. March. 2 City of Hercules. 1998. City of Hercules General Plan – Land Use Element (Part 2). Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/155/636582802056930000. Accessed December 8, 2021. 3 City of Hercules. 2019. Hercules Land Use and Zoning Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/193/637109735029770000. Accessed December 8, 2021.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 3 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Parcel A This parcel would be 58,557 square feet and would be a private street and Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) road that connects to Skelly and circles the project site. The EVA road would vary in width in different places, ranging from 34 feet wide to 45 feet wide.

Parcel B This parcel would be a 16,957-square-foot bioretention area located at the northwest corner of the project site. This area contains the two seasonal wetlands described above in Section 1.3.

Parcel C Adjacent to Parcel B, this parcel would be 3,763 square feet and would serve as a second EVA road at the northwest corner of the project site, connecting the proposed private road to the adjacent residential area to the north of the project site. This road would be 25 feet wide.

Parcel D This parcel would be 20,858 square feet and would remain open space toward the southeast corner of the project site.

Parcel E Connected to Parcel D, this parcel would be 7,907 square feet with an existing cell tower at the southeast corner of the project site.

Parcel F This parcel would be 672 square feet located at the southwest corner of the project site and would provide a pedestrian connection to Pinole Creek Trail.

Parcel G This parcel would be 3,430 square feet and would be an EBMUD utility easement located along the northeast portion of the project site.

Additionally, three separate utility easements would exist along Parcel B, along Parcel G, and along the southern border of the project site.

The proposed project design was, in part, based on community feedback from the nearby neighborhoods. The proposed units would be comparably sized to the surrounding residential lots, with residences located to preserve neighbor privacy. Residences, which would all be two stories, would be similar in square footage to the adjacent homes along Pearce and Pavon. The maximum height of each single-family home would be 26 feet and 9 inches and would vary from 1,583 square feet to 2,311 square feet. Lot sizes would vary from 3,983 to 6,880 square feet. The proposed residential units would have front setbacks of at least 20 feet, rear setbacks of at least 27 feet, and minimum side setbacks of 5 feet. Project housing would be composed of three different architectural styles. Several fences, ranging in size from 3 to 6 feet tall, are planned between lots, and along the rear property lines throughout the project site.

Circulation
Vehicular access to the site would be provided by an extension of Skelly, which would also serve as an EVA road. A second EVA road would connect the proposed private road to the adjacent residential area to the north of the project site. Sidewalks would be provided on all new streets.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Introduction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Parking
Each residence would have a two-car garage and a driveway with room to park two additional vehicles. On-street parking would also be provided within the project site to accommodate all resident and guest parking on-site.

Landscaping and Lighting
Each proposed residential unit would have a landscaped front yard including street trees, accent trees, groundcover, and shrubs (Exhibit 5). All plants would be selected for increased water conservation and low maintenance characteristics.

Lighting would be installed and would be subject to review and approval by the City of Hercules. The residential development would include 10 streetlights along Skelly and the Parcel A private road.

Utilities
Water
The EBMUD would provide potable water service to the project site. Under the existing conditions, an 8-inch water line is located along Skelly. The proposed 8-inch water lines would connect to the existing water line.

Wastewater
Wastewater is collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is operated by the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Under the existing conditions, an 8-inch sewer line is located along Rosti. The proposed 8-inch sewer lines would connect to the existing sewer line.

Energy and Natural Gas
Electricity and natural gas services would be provided by PG&E.

Stormwater
Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site.

1.4.1 - Project Phasing
Construction of the proposed project is expected to start in October 2023 and to conclude in October 2024. For the purposes of this analysis, construction of the proposed project was assumed to correspond to these dates. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction FirstCarbon Solutions 5 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx

1.5 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Hercules has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA lead agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the City would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Lot Line Adjustment to expand the rear yard for emergency access • Design Review Permit
• Planned Development Plan to deviate from selected zoning district standards to accommodate housing units within the property’s allowed General Plan density • Zoning Amendment to change text in Section 13.48 (Planned Development Plans) of the Hercules Municipal Code to alter the allowed deviations permitted with a Planned Development, by eliminating the limitations on the amount of a deviation

1.6 - Intended Uses of this Document
This Draft IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND should be sent to:

Tim Rood, Community Development Director
City of Hercules
111 Civic Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Phone: 510.799.8251
Email: [email protected]

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
12 29
121
121
37 4
Napa County
Solano County
80 680
80 24
680
116
780
Benicia
Fairfield
Suisun City
Martinez
Bay Point
Pleasant Hill
Concord
Walnut Creek
Lafayette
Moraga
Orinda
Alamo
Danville
San Ramo
Piedmont
Oakland
Alameda
Castro Valley San Leandro
Vallejo
Contra Costa County
Hercules
Pinole
San Pablo
Richmond
El Cerrito
Albany
Berkeley
S San Rafael an Anselmo
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
San Francisco
American
Canyon
Napa
Marin County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
21180006 • 12/2021 | 1_regional.mxd
Exhibit 1
Regional Location Map
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL). 5 2.5 0 5
Miles
Text
Project Site

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Site
Legend
City of Hercules

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21180006 • 12/2021 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: bing Aerial Imagery. County of Contra Costa Parcel Data.

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1,000 500 0 1,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City Limits
City of Hercules
City of Pinole

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Photograph 1: Existing residence onsite.

Photograph 2: Existing vegetation.
21180006 • 12/2021 | 3a_site_photos.cdr CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3a
Site Photographs

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Photograph 3: Horse paddocks.

Photograph 4: Miscellaneous outbuildings.
21180006 • 12/2021 | 3b_site_photos.cdr CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 3b
Site Photographs

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
21180006 • 04/2022 | 4_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 4
Site Plan

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: R3 Studios, March 2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21180006 • 04/2022 | 5_Typical Planting Plan.cdr
Exhibit 5
Typical Planting Plan

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Source: R3 Studios, February 2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 19 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date:
6/29/2022
Signed:

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.1 Aesthetics
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 building 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 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
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City’s Open Space and Conservation Plan designates several public parks, open space, waterfronts, and trails, which are valuable as a visual resource. The City has a scenic setting in which the higher areas east of Interstate 80 (I-80) overlook the San Pablo Bay, with distant views of the coastal range in Marin County. Areas west of I-80, closer to the Bayfront, also have scenic views. In addition, the Highway 4 corridor through Franklin Canyon has scenic views of the valley and adjacent hillside grasslands and oak woodlands. The General Plan Circulation Element designates San Pablo Avenue and Highway 4 as scenic routes and provides implementation measures for development along them. The nearest City-designated scenic route to the project site is San Pablo Avenue, which is approximately 250 feet southeast of the project site.

Because of distance, intervening development, and topography, scenic resources like the San Pablo Bay (approximately 2,800 feet west of the project site) and Franklin Canyon (approximately 2 miles east of the project site) are not visible from the project site. Exhibit 6 shows the existing view of the project site from Skelly, which consists of trees, a paved path, and fencing, and provides a rendering of the proposed project from Skelly. The rendering shows that some on-site trees would be removed, Skelly would be extended, and proposed residences would be sited on both sides of Skelly. Exhibit 7 shows a simulation from San Pablo Avenue overlooking the project site.

Would the project:

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 21 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. As discussed above, scenic resources, which include San Pablo Bay and Franklin Canyon, are not visible from the project site. Just south of the project site is San Pablo Avenue, which is designated as a scenic route between Pinole Valley Road and Willow Avenue. According to General Plan Policy 3.B.3, Scenic Views, key ‘public’ views visible from scenic routes, as determined by the City, shall be preserved to the extent practical.4 Under existing conditions, views available to travelers on San Pablo Avenue include railroad tracks, the City of Pinole monument, green space, trees, and the sky. The simulation in Exhibit 7 illustrates the views from San Pablo Avenue after the construction of the proposed project and the removal of eucalyptus trees on-site. Although the proposed project would remove up to 21 eucalyptus trees on-site, including eucalyptus trees that are currently visible from San Pablo Avenue, considering the typical speed of travel (25 miles per hour) along this roadway, the views for those traveling on San Pablo Avenue would be similar to the existing available views and therefore would not be significantly impacted. Therefore, because there are no scenic vistas visible from the project site, and because views from San Pablo Avenue would be similar to the existing views, there would be no impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
No impact. There are no designated State Scenic Highways near the project site. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of State Route (SR) 24, located approximately 11 miles south of the project site.5 SR-37, located approximately 7 miles north of the project site, is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway. The proposed project is not visible from either SR24 or SR-37. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to damage any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings visible from these roadways. Therefore, no impact would occur. 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 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 impact. Degradation of visual character or quality requires substantial changes to the existing appearance of a site by constructing elements that are poorly designed or that conflict with the existing surroundings. The 7.44-acre project site is located at 215 Skelly and is bound by single-family homes to the north and east; Pinole Creek and two single-family homes located on separate lots to the west; and the BNSF rail line to the south (Exhibit 2). Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be located in an area that has been built out and is in an urbanized condition.
4 City of Hercules. 2018. Circulation Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/173/636700226852830000. Accessed June 9, 2022. 5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highway System Lists. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed March 7, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx As described in Section 1.3.1, Land Use and Zoning, the RS-L designation allows for 2 to 7 units per acre. The proposed project would construct 40 units on 7.44 acres, which is approximately 5.4 units per acre, compliant with the land use designation. The project applicant is requesting the City to enter into a Development Agreement which would establish site-specific zoning for the project site.

As such, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely affect nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be derived from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). Light-sensitive land uses in the area may include the residential neighborhoods to the north and east of the project site.

The project site currently contains a single-family residence, horse paddocks, a storage building, a large shed, and miscellaneous outbuildings. All of these buildings have been vacated and do not create sources of light. Existing sources of light and glare around the project site include car headlights from cars driving along Skelly as well as internal lighting from adjacent residences.

The proposed project would create new sources of light and glare from the project site. Police 13e of the General Plan requires new development to minimize light and glare impacts through measures such as screening of parking areas, the use of hooded lights to direct light towards the ground, and the use of less reflective building materials and windows. According to the Open Space Element of the General Plan, the City of Hercules evaluates the light and glare potential of new development on a parcel-specific basis.
6 Lighting would be installed to minimize light pollution and would be subject to review and approval by the City of Hercules to ensure that the new sources of light and glare comply with the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to the performance standards and design review as outlined in the City’s zoning requirements that would further reduce light and glare impacts. The residential development would include 10 streetlights along Skelly and the Parcel A private road. The streetlights would be subject to the Street Lighting Standards in Section 10-2.621 of the Municipal Code.7 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
6 City of Hercules. General Plan Open Space Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12571/636777935669470000. Accessed: June 14, 2022. 7 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules10/Hercules102.html. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Existing View
Simulated View
21180006 • 03/2022 | 6_rendering_of_entry_street.cdr
Source: D.R. Horton, 2022. Applicant-provided Rendering/Visual Simulation.

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 6
Rendering of Entry Street Scene from Skelly Road

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Existing View
Simulated View
21180006 • 03/2022 | 7_vis_sim_view_from_san_pablo_ave.cdr Source: D.R. Horton, 2022. Applicant-provided Rendering/Visual Simulation.

CITY OF HERCULES

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 7
Visual Simulation of View from San Pablo Avenue

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 27 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural 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 nonagricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Evaluation
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Setting
The DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps that display farmland within the State. The California Department of Conservation Inventory Map confirms that the project site is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land.8 There are no designated agricultural lands or forested areas within the immediate project area.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No impact. As previously stated, the California Department of Conservation FMMP mapping for the City designates the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land.9 The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and, therefore, would not result in the conversion of such land to nonagricultural use. There would be no impact. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The Hercules General Plan and the Hercules Zoning Map designate the project site as RSL. The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban single-family subdivisions.10 Thus, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or with a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact. 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))? No impact. As previously mentioned, the project site is zoned as RS-L, which is intended for suburban single-family subdivisions. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland. No impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. According to the California Public Resources Code, “forest land” is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.11 The project site is zoned as RS-L and is not zoned for forest use. This condition precludes the possibility of a conflict with a 8 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 16, 2022. 9 Ibid. 10 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules Title 13 – Zoning Ordinance. October 13. 11 Thomson Reuters Westlaw. 2019. California Code, Public Resources Code 12220.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 29 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx forest zoning designation. The project site does not contain nor is adjacent to any forested land.

Furthermore, there is no designated forest land within the City. Therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact. As discussed throughout this section, the proposed project would not result in impacts to mapped farmland or forest land. The proposed project would not result in any other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agriculture uses or the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses because neither agricultural nor forest land exist on the project site or in its vicinity.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.3 Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

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 or) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Environmental Evaluation
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Hercules, Contra Costa County. It is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), where the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for identifying non-attainment and attainment areas for each criteria pollutant within the Air Basin. The Air Basin is designated non-attainment for State standards for 1- hour and 8-hour ozone, 24-hour respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5).12
The BAAQMD has adopted several air quality policies and plans to address regional air quality standards, the most recent of which is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was adopted in April of 2017 and serves as the regional Air Quality Plan (AQP) for the Air Basin for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan acknowledges that the BAAQMD’s two stated goals of protection are closely related. As such, the 2017 Clean Air Plan 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 31 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx identifies a wide range of control measures intended to decrease both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EPA has established NAAQS for six of some of the most common air pollutants—carbon monoxide, lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide—known as “criteria” air pollutants. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gaseous compounds in the atmosphere that are capable of absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, GHGs are responsible for the greenhouse effect, which ultimately leads to global warming. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also accounts for projections of population growth provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and State air quality standards. A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process. This section will discuss the air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The BAAQMD does not provide a numerical threshold of significance for project-level consistency analysis with AQPs. Therefore, the following criteria will be used for determining a project’s consistency with the AQP.13 • Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder the implementation of any AQP control measures?
Criterion 1
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, the current AQP to date, are to:
• Attain air quality standards.
• Reduce population exposure to unhealthy air and protect public health in the Bay Area. • Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

A measure for determining whether the proposed project supports the primary goals of the AQP is if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the air quality plans. This measure is determined by evaluating whether the proposed project was reasonably accounted for in the AQP.

The City’s General Plan’s Housing Element was updated in 2015,14 which was prior to the BAAQMD’s 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022. 14 City of Hercules. 2015. Housing Element, 2015–2023. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/7801/636582802056930000. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx adoption of the latest 2017 AQP. The project site is designated RS-L by the General Plan.

The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban singlefamily subdivisions. The RS-L designation allows for 2 to 7 units per acre and a maximum building height of 35 feet. The minimum parcel size under the RS-L designation is 6,000 square feet unless a smaller lot size is allowed with an approved development plan. With the approval of a Zoning Amendment and a Planned Development Plan per the Hercules Municipal Code Chapter 13-48,15 the proposed project would develop 40 single-family houses on a 7.44-acre land, which translates to an average density of approximately 5.4 units per acre and would be consistent with its land use and zoning designation. As the BAAQMD’s latest AQP utilizes growth projections from Plan Bay Area 2040, which relies on growth projections and land use patterns from local general plans and was adopted after the adoption of the City’s General Plan, development of the project site has been reasonably accounted for in the BAAQMD’s latest AQP.

Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 2.3(b), implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD operational or construction thresholds for criteria pollutants on an average daily or annual basis. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.

Criterion 2
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains control measures to reduce air pollutants and GHGs at the local, regional, and global levels. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source, and transportation control measures, the 2017 Clean Air Plan contains many control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary mobile sources. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also includes an account of the implementation status of control measures identified in the prior 2010 Clean Air Plan.

Table 1 lists the Clean Air Plan policies relevant to the proposed project and evaluates the consistency with the policies. As shown below, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable measures.

Table 1: Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures Control Measure Project Consistency
Buildings Control Measures
BL1: Green Buildings Consistent. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of this measure. Hercules Municipal Code Title 9 Chapter 2 Building Code incorporates all measures contained in the 2019 California Building Code and Chapter 16 Green Building Standards Code includes all measures
from Title 24. The proposed project would be required to comply with the latest energy efficiency standards
contained in these codes and incorporate applicable energy efficiency features designed to reduce project energy
consumption. For example, the proposed project would
15 City of Hercules. Municipal Code 13-48. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/html/Hercules13/Hercules1348.html. Accessed March 8, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 33 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
include low water-demand landscaping, which would
reduce the amount of energy needed to provide outdoor
water. The City would enforce these measures prior to
issuance of demolition, grading, construction, or building permits, as applicable.

BL4: Urban Heat Island Mitigation Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet of
landscaping on Parcel D (about one-eighth of the
Parcel), which would serve to reduce stormwater
runoff and would include the planting of shade trees;
hence, it would also reduce the urban heat island
effect.

Energy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Generation Consistent. The project applicant would, at a minimum, be required to conform to the energy
efficiency requirements of the California Building
Standards Code (CBC), also known as Title 24. The
2019 Title 24 Standards are the current State building
regulations which went into effect on January 1,
2020. Proposed buildings that would receive building
permits after January 1, 2020, would be subject to
the 2019 Title 24 Standards, including the proposed
project. For example, the proposed project would
install solar photovoltaic systems capable of
generating 78,200 kWh of electricity per year as well
as low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads
compliant with Title 24 Standards.

EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand
Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Tree Planting Consistent. The proposed project would include 16,957 square feet of landscaped and irrigated
bioretention basin area and 4,432 square feet (about
one-eighth of area) of landscaping on Parcel D.

Plantings would include trees, shrubs, and
groundcover.

WA3: Green Waste Diversion Consistent. The waste service provider for the proposed project would be required to meet the
Assembly Bill (AB) 341, Senate Bill (SB) 939, and SB
1374 requirements that require waste service
providers to divert green waste. In addition, AB 1383
went into effect on January 1, 2022, which aims to
reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025
and to secure 20 percent of surplus edible food for
the food insecure by 2025.16 RecycleMore provides
green waste service for the City of Hercules and
would provide all new residents with green waste
16 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (RecycleMore). 2022. New Recycling Law Starts January 1, 2022.

November 8. Website: https://recyclemore.com/new-recycling-law-starts-january-1-2022/. Accessed April 12, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Control Measure Project Consistency
bins. All vegetation refuse generated during
operations of the proposed project would be
disposed of off-site.

WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction Consistent: The waste service provider for the proposed project would be required to meet the AB
341, SB 939, and SB 1374 requirements that require
recyclable waste to be recycled and to remove 75
percent from the landfill waste stream by 2020.

Stationary Control Measures
SS36: Particulate Matter from Trackout Consistent with mitigation. BAAQMD’s recommended mitigation measures for construction
fugitive dust control would be implemented to
reduce fugitive dust and trackout during project
construction. In addition, mud and dirt that may be
tracked out onto the nearby public roads during
construction activities shall be removed promptly by
the contractor based on BAAQMD’s requirements.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent
with this measure after implementation of Mitigation
Measure (MM) AIR-1.

SS37: Particulate Matter from Asphalt Operations Consistent. Asphalt used during the construction of the proposed project would be subject to BAAQMD
Regulation 8, Rule 15-Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts.

Although this rule does not directly apply to the
proposed project, it does limit the reactive organic
gas (ROG) content of asphalt available for use during
construction through regulating the sale and use of
asphalt. By using asphalt from facilities that meet
BAAQMD regulations, the proposed project would be
consistent with this Clean Air Plan measure.

Transportation Control Measures
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities. Consistent. There are existing sidewalks along the proposed project’s frontage on Skelly that connects
to the nearest arterial road. Several bus stops are
located within a walking distance of the site,
including the San Pablo Avenue and John Street Stop
(500-foot walking distance to the project site) and
San Pablo and Hercules Stop (2,600-foot walking
distance to the project site) operated by Western
Contra Costa Transit Authority. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with the
BAAQMD’s efforts to encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposedfinal-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed March 8, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 35 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx As mentioned above in the discussion for Control Measure SS36, the proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-1 to ensure that impacts from construction fugitive dust emissions are less than significant. As discussed under Impact b, in their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the BAAQMD identifies recommended significance thresholds for project construction. While the BAAQMD recommends a numeric threshold for emissions of ozone precursors, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust, the BAAQMD recommends the inclusion of construction dust control BMPs to reduce fugitive dust emissions to less than significant levels. Projects that do not implement construction BMPs may result in potentially significant impacts related to construction fugitive dust. In accordance with this guidance, the proposed project would implement BAAQMD-recommended BMPs for fugitive dust control via the incorporation of MM AIR-1. The BMPs identified in MM AIR-1 include measures such as watering exposed non-paved surfaces at least two times per day, removing trackout from adjacent public roads at least once per day, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour.

In summary, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable measures under the 2017 Clean Air Plan after the implementation of MM AIR-1; therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Criterion 2 after incorporation of mitigation.

Criterion 3
The proposed project would constitute the development and operation of 40 single-family houses and would not include any feature or design which could create conditions which prevent the extension of adjacent transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not preclude the extension of a transit line or bike path, propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements, or otherwise create an impediment or disruption to implementation of any AQP control measures. As shown in Table 1 above, the proposed project would incorporate several AQP control measures as project design features, such as complying with energy efficiency standards contained in the 2019 California Building Code and maintaining landscaping across the project site.

Considering this information, the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures. The proposed project is therefore consistent with Criterion 3.

Summary
As addressed above, the proposed project would be consistent with all three criteria after the incorporation of MM AIR-1. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a proposed project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development within the Air Basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact. Therefore, new development projects (such as the Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx proposed project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in non-attainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

Potential localized and regional impacts would result in exceedances of State or federal standards for nitrous oxide (NOX), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or carbon monoxide (CO). NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of particular concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of particular concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion.

Reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable.

Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the proposed project would result in regional emissions that exceed the BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level.

The thresholds of significance represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can produce without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts.

Therefore, a proposed project that would not exceed the BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance on the project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below.

Construction Fugitive Dust
As previously mentioned, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) would be generated during earthmoving activities but would largely remain localized near the project site.

The BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on considering the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. As the proposed project would involve the disturbance of greater than one acre, the development and implementation of a Stormwater City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 37 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction activities is reasonably expected to comply with existing regulations. The SWPPP would ensure the implementation of various dust control measures which are most appropriate for the project site. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, watering or seeding disturbed areas, covering stockpiles of dirt or aggregate, or other soil stabilization practices.

In addition, the BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects implement a series of mitigation measures which also include various dust control measures, such as watering disturbed areas daily and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads. As such, the construction mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD are included herein as Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1 to ensure that adequate dust control measures are implemented at the project site, in combination with any additional dust control measures identified and implemented by the SWPPP for the proposed project. With the incorporation of MM AIR-1, short-term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant for fugitive dust.

Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate the proposed project’s construction emissions. CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and is the model recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating project emissions. Estimated construction emissions are compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance for this criterion.

Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in 2023 and would last approximately 13 months. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements that would affect future construction equipment. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represent a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required by CEQA Guidelines. For a more detailed description of the construction parameters used in estimating air pollutant emissions modeling, please refer to Appendix A.

The calculations of pollutant emissions from the construction equipment account for the type of equipment, horsepower, and load factors of the equipment, along with the duration of use. As the proposed project would introduce the new on-site sensitive receptors, for the purposes of the air dispersion modeling and health risk assessment contained under Impact 2.3(c), project construction was split into two modeling scenarios: one for construction activity occurring before the introduction of new sensitive receptors and one for construction activity occurring after the introduction of new sensitive receptors. Therefore, the “Building Construction (Pre-Receptors)” and “Architectural Coating (Pre-Receptors)” construction activities shown in Table 2 represent development of Phases 1 through 5 up until the anticipated introduction of the first on-site receptors, while the “Building Construction (Post-Receptors)” and “Architectural Coating (Post-Receptors)” construction activities represent development of Phases 2 through 5 after the anticipated introduction of the first on-site Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx receptors. Refer to Appendix A for more details on project construction modeling. Average daily construction emissions are compared with the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in Table 2.

Table 2: Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1
(tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Demolition 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.01
Site Preparation (Site-Wide) 0.01 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (Site-Wide) 0.03 0.27 0.01 0.01
Building Construction
(Model Homes) <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Paving
(Interior Roadways and
Foundations)

0.01 0.11 0.01 0.01
Architectural Coating
(Pavement and Model Homes) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction
(Pre-Receptors) 0.04 0.39 0.02 0.01
Architectural Coating
(Pre-Receptors) 0.28 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Building Construction
(Post-Receptors) 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.02
Architectural Coating
(Post-Receptors) 0.27 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Total Emissions (tons) 0.72 1.59 0.07 0.07
Daily Average
Total Emissions (lbs) 1,433 3,185 139 132
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)2 5.19 11.54 0.51 0.48 Significance Threshold (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
ROG = reactive organic gases
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded totals. 2 Calculated by dividing the total lbs of emissions by the total number of nonoverlapping working days of construction (276 workdays).

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 39 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Construction Activity
Air Pollutants1
(tons/year)
ROG NOX PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A).

As shown in Table 2, the construction emissions from all construction activities are well below the recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, project construction would have less than significant impact related to emissions of ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5. As previously discussed, the proposed project would implement MM AIR-1 for dust control to reduce potential impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during project construction. Therefore, proposed project construction would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Operational Emissions
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 Operational emissions would include area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape equipment, while energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water and space heating. Mobile sources include exhaust and road dust emissions from the vehicles that would travel to and from the project site. Pollutants of concern include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Project operations were analyzed starting in 2024, the first calendar year of potential operation. The major sources for proposed operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 include motor vehicle traffic, use of natural gas, and the occasional repainting of buildings.

The average daily and annual emissions are presented in Table 3. Operational emissions of the respective pollutants were calculated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0. For detailed assumptions used to estimate emissions, see Appendix A.

Table 3: Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emissions Source
Criteria Pollutants

ROG NOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Annual Emissions Summary (tons/year)
Area 0.37 0.01 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01
Mobile (Motor Vehicles) 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.09
Total Project Emissions 0.79 0.60 0.46 0.11
Thresholds of Significance 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Average Daily Emissions Summary (lbs/day)
Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Emissions Source
Criteria Pollutants

ROG NOX
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Project Emissions 1,586 1,203 917 222
Average Daily Project Emissions (lbs/day)1 4.34 3.30 2.51 0.61 Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
NOX = nitrous oxides.

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
1 For average daily emissions, the proposed project is assumed to operate 365 days per year. Therefore, the annual tonnage of emissions is multiplied by 2,000 pounds per ton to identify total pounds of emissions and divided by 365 days per year to identify average daily emissions.

Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix A).

As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance during operation, indicating that ongoing project operations would not be considered to have the potential to generate a significant quantity of air pollutants. Therefore, long-term operational impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.

Operational Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The CO emissions from traffic generated by the proposed project are a concern at the local level.

Congested intersections can result in the potential for high, localized concentrations of CO, known as a CO hotspot.

The BAAQMD recommends a screening analysis to determine whether a project has the potential to contribute to a CO hotspot. The screening criteria identify when site-specific CO dispersion modeling is necessary. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to air quality for local CO if all the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable Congestion Management Program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; and

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

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 41 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx As indicated in the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared for the proposed project,17 no intersections impacted by the proposed project would experience traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour. The TIA analyzed two intersections, Hercules Avenue at Skelly and Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue, for both the AM and PM peak-hour scenarios. According to the TIA, during existing conditions both intersections would experience the highest traffic volumes during the PM peak-hour, the volumes during which are provided below:
• Hercules Avenue at Skelly–392 vehicles per hour
• Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue–2,664 vehicles per hour As discussed in the TIA, the proposed project would generate 337 daily trips with 28 AM peak-hour and 38 PM peak-hour trips. As a result, the addition of the proposed project’s 38 PM peak-hour trips at these intersections would equal an estimated 430 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at Skelly and 2,702 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue intersection. Therefore, during existing conditions the addition of proposed project traffic volumes would not result in nearby intersections experiencing traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour.

According to the TIA, during cumulative conditions both intersections would experience the highest traffic volumes during the PM peak-hour:
• Hercules Avenue/Skelly–454 vehicles per hour
• Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue–3,087 vehicles per hour As a result, the addition of the proposed project’s 38 PM peak-hour trips at these intersections would equal an estimated 492 vehicle at the Hercules Avenue at Skelly and 3,125 vehicles at the Hercules Avenue at San Pablo Avenue intersection. Therefore, during cumulative conditions, the addition of proposed project traffic volumes would not result in nearby intersections experiencing traffic volumes of 44,000 or more vehicles per hour.

Nonetheless, CO hotspots can still occur when a transportation facility’s design or orientation prevents the adequate dispersion of CO emissions from vehicles, resulting in the accumulation of local CO concentrations. The design or orientation of a transportation facility that may prevent the dispersion of CO emissions include tunnels, parking garages, bridge underpasses, natural or urban canyons, below-grade roadways, or other features where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. However, adjacent roadways that would receive new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project do not include transportation facilities where vertical or horizontal atmospheric mixing is substantially limited. Hercules Avenue, Skelly, and San Pablo Avenue, which are the nearby roadways that would receive vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, are all exposed surface roadways with none of the design features discussed above that could prevent atmospheric mixing.
17 TKJM Transportation Consultants. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for 215 Skelly Residential Project.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Finally, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to transportation. As discussed in further detail in Section 2.17 Transportation, all studied roadway segments and intersections would operate at acceptable levels with traffic generated by the proposed project in combination with existing traffic levels. Therefore, the proposed project is considered consistent with the local Congestion Management Program. Therefore, based on the above criteria, the proposed project would not exceed the CO screening criteria and would have a less than significant impact related to CO.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The BAAQMD defines a sensitive receptor as the following: “Facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and residential areas.” As specified by the BAAQMD, health risk and hazard impacts should be analyzed for sensitive receptors within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site.18 The closest existing sensitive receptors in each direction include the following:
• Pinole Senior Center Building, as close as 280 feet south of the project site. • La Casita Bilingual Montessori School, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
• Pinole Community Players, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
• Saint Joseph Church (potential daycare), as close as 1,000 feet south of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the west. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. • Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east.

The following four criteria were applied to determine the significance of project emissions to sensitive receptors. The proposed project is considered to have a potentially significant impact if:
• Criterion 1: Construction of the project would result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 2: The cumulative health impact would result in an exceedance of the cumulative health risk significance thresholds.
• Criterion 3: Operation of the project would result in an exceedance of the health risk significance thresholds.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 19, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 43 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx • Criterion 4: A CO hotspot assessment demonstrates that the project would result in the development of a CO hotspot that could cause an exceedance of the CO ambient air quality standards.

Criterion 1: Project Construction Toxic Air Pollutants
An assessment was made of the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from toxic air contaminants (TAC) emissions during construction. A summary of the assessment is provided below, while the detailed assessment is provided Appendix A.

Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. Major sources of DPM include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck and worker activities. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5.

Estimation of Construction DPM Emissions
Construction DPM emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, as described under the discussion for Impact 2.3(b). As presented in Error! Reference source not found., the proposed project's construction is anticipated to occur from October 2023 through October 2024.

Construction emissions were calculated for each construction activity, as displayed in Table 2. On-site and off-site emissions generated during project construction were modeled with a working schedule of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week.

Based on the analysis presented in this section, emissions were estimated for unmitigated project construction. Table 4 summarizes the emission rates of unmitigated DPM during construction of the proposed project, as analyzed for construction of the entire project.

Table 4: Project DPM Construction Emissions
Scenario
On-site DPM—Area
(tons/year)
Off-site DPM—Road
Segments
(tons/year)1
Total Local DPM
Emissions
(tons/year)
Project Construction DPM (Pre-Receptors) 0.04488 0.00046 0.04534 Project Construction DPM (Post-Receptors) 0.02050 0.00006 0.02056 Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
1 The off-site emissions are adjusted to represent construction vehicle travel routes from within approximately 1,000 feet of the project site. Off-site emissions shown here do not reflect the 1,000-foot adjustment. 2 Emissions herein do not reflect the application of any construction or operational mitigation measures.

Source: CalEEMod Output and Construction Health Risk Assessment Calculations; see Appendix A.

Estimation of Cancer Risks and Hazards
The BAAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for estimating cancer risks that provide adjustment factors that emphasize the increased sensitivities and susceptibility of young children to exposures Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx to TAC.19,20 These adjustment factors include age-sensitivity weighting factors, age-specific daily breathing rates, and age-specific time-at-home factors. As shown in the AERMOD output files, the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) would be at a single-family residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. The following equations are drawn from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Health Risk Assessment (HRA) guidelines and were adjusted with values identified for adjustment in the BAAQMD guidelines.

Cancer Risk = CPF x DOSEAIR x ASP x ED/AT x FAH (EQ-1)
Where:

Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.

CPF = Inhalation Cancer Potency Factor (1.1)
ASP = Age Sensitivity Factor (see Table 5)
ED = Exposure Duration (duration of construction activity) AT = Averaging Time for lifetime cancer risk (70 years expressed in days) FAH = Fraction of time At Home (see Table 5)
DOSEAIR = CAIR x DBR x A x EF (EQ-2)
Where:

CAIR = TAC concentration from air dispersion model (µg/m3 )
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate (see Table 5)
A = Inhalation Absorption factor (1)
EF = Exposure Frequency (see Table 5)
The BAAQMD- and OEHHB-recommended values for the various cancer risk parameters, shown in EQ-1 and EQ-2, are provided in Table 5.

Table 5: Exposure Assumptions for Cancer Risk Calculations Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Residences1
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 350 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 350 10 1,090
19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-riskreduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol_august_2020-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 350 3 631
9 to 16 years 1 1 350 3 572
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 0.73 350 1 261
30 to 70 years 1 0.73 350 1 233
Schools2
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 250 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 250 10 1,090
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 250 3 861
9 to 16 years 1 1 250 3 745
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 1 250 1 335
30 to 70 years 1 1 250 1 290
Daycares and Community Centers2
Infant Receptors
Third Trimester 0.25 1 350 10 361
0 to 2 years 0.75 1 350 10 1,090
Child Receptors
2 to 9 years 1 1 350 3 861
9 to 16 years 1 1 350 3 745
Adult Receptors
16 to 30 years 1 1 350 1 335
30 to 70 years 1 1 350 1 290
Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Receptor Type
Duration During
Construction
(Years)
Fraction of Time
at Home
(FAH)
Exposure
Frequency (EF)
(Days/Year)
Age Sensitivity
Factors
(ASF)
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)
(L/kg-day)
Notes:

L/kg-day = liters per kilogram body weight per day. 1 The daily breathing rates recommended by the BAAQMD for residential receptors assume the 95th percentile breathing rates for all individuals less than 2 years of age and 80th percentile breathing rates for all older individuals.

BAAQMD assumes residential receptors exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. BAAQMD further recommends applying the above FAH values to reflect the expected time the receptor spends at the residence. 2 All school, daycare, and community center receptors utilize the 95th percentile daily breathing rates for their respective age groups.

Sources:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed April 13, 2022.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. February. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2022.

Estimation of Non-Cancer Chronic Hazards
TACs can also cause chronic (long-term) effects related to non-cancer illnesses, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Non-cancer health risks are conveyed in terms of the hazard index (HI), a ratio of the predicted concentration of the facility’s reported TAC emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals. A significant risk is defined as an HI of 1 or greater. An HI of less than 1 indicates that no significant health risks are expected from the facility’s TAC emissions. The relationship for the non-cancer hazards of TACs is given by the following equation:

HI = Cann/REL
Where:

HI = Hazard Index: an expression of the potential for chronic non-cancer health risks Cann = Annual average TAC concentration (µg/m3
)
REL = Reference Exposure Level: the DPM concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated
Annual concentrations of DPM as predicted by the air dispersion model are used to estimate chronic non-cancer hazards. The OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 µg/m3 .

Estimation of Health Risks and Hazards from Project Construction To assess impacts to off-site sensitive receptors, receptor locations within the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) were placed at locations of existing residences and schools located in the vicinity of the project boundary. As previously discussed, project construction is anticipated to start in October 2023 and conclude in October 2024. The following AERMOD modeling parameters were utilized to identify the DPM concentration at identified receptors.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx

1. Sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, daycare facilities, hospitals, care facilities, residences) in the immediate project vicinity are represented in the model with discrete Cartesian receptors at a flagpole height of 1.5 meters. For schools, daycares, and community centers, including any associated outdoor areas, a boundary of discrete receptors was placed around the perimeter of that land use to identify potential impacts at the closest point to the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site represented in the air dispersion modeling include the following:
• Pinole Senior Center Building, as close as 280 feet south of the project site. • La Casita Bilingual Montessori School, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
• Pinole Community Players, including nearby outdoor play areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
• Saint Joseph Church (potential daycare), as close as 1,000 feet south of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the west. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. • Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. • Single-family residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east.

2. A nested Cartesian grid was placed in AERMOD with the following spacing parameters:
• 20 meters spacing within the project site and up to 200 meters from the project site. • 50 meters spacing between 200 meters and 500 meters from the project site. • 100 meters spacing between 500 meters and 1,000 meters from the project site. • 200 meters spacing between 1,000 and 2,000 meters from the project site.

3. AERMOD’s non-default regulatory dispersion option was selected. Among the dispersion control options available, the Fast All Sources option was selected.

4. The urban dispersion coefficient was used as greater than 50 percent of the surrounding three kilometers is developed.

5. Emissions were characterized in the model using various area and volume sources to represent different activities. The following describes the emission sources utilized in the model for each model scenario.
• On-site construction activities are represented with one polygon area source across the entire project site.
• Off-site construction hauling and vendor truck operation for project construction is represented with line volume sources on Skelly.

Off-site emissions were adjusted to account for off-site emissions that would occur within 1,000 feet of the project site (see Off-Site PM2.5 Exhaust Adjustment Sheet in Appendix A).

6. Meteorological data from the Napa County Airport Air Monitoring Station was used for lower atmospheric meteorological data. This station was selected as it is the closest monitoring station to the project site and it resembles physical site characteristics and elevation generally representative of the project site. The Oakland Airport Air Monitoring Station provides preprocessed meteorological data for upper atmospheric conditions in the region.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Both monitoring stations cover the years 2009-2014. The model used all years of available meteorological data.

The MIR during project construction were found at a residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. Table 6 presents a summary of the proposed project’s construction cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard, and annual PM2.5 concentration impacts at each MIR. For informational purposes, Table 6 also present risks and hazards associated with the maximum impacted school, daycare, and community center.

Table 6: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction—Unmitigated Impact Scenario
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic Non-Cancer
Hazard Index5
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(mg/m3)
Residential MIR (Off-Site)1 6.21 0.01 0.05
Residential MIR (On-Site)1 3.46 0.01 0.06
School MIR2 0.12 <0.01 <0.01
Daycare MIR3 0.39 <0.01 <0.01
Community Center MIR4 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 10 1 0.3
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No No
Notes:

MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
1 The Off-site Residential MIR represents a residence immediately adjacent to the project site to the east. The On-site Residential MIR represents on-site receptors which were introduced following the completion of Phase 1 of construction.
2 The School MIR represents the La Casitas Bilingual Montessori School and associated outdoor areas, as close as 220 feet southwest of the project site.
3 The Daycare MIR represents the Loving Arms Family Daycare, as close as 260 feet north of the project site. 4 The Community Center MIR represents the Pinole Community Players and associated outdoor areas, as close as 325 feet southwest of the project site.
2 Chronic non-cancer hazard index was estimated by dividing the annual DPM concentration (as PM2.5 exhaust)by the Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 5 µg/m3.

Source: Appendix A.

As shown in Table 6, the residential MIR represents the MIR across all potentially impacted receptors, including school and daycare receptors, during project construction. As illustrated therein, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s cancer risk, chronic non-cancer hazard index, and annual PM2.5 thresholds of significance at either MIR.

Therefore, the proposed project’s construction emissions would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 49 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Criterion 2: Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
The BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For a project-level analysis, the BAAQMD provides several tools for use in screening potential sources of TACs. The BAAQMD-provided tools used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from TACs are described below:
• Health Risks for Local Roadways. The BAAQMD pre-calculated concentrations and the associated potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentration increases for each county within their jurisdiction for roadways that carry at least 30,000 average daily trips. For Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program areas, the BAAQMD also includes local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria of 10,000 vehicles or 1,000 trucks per day. The latest available screening tool is in the form of a Geographic Information System (GIS) raster file. As the proposed project is not located in a CARE area,21 the BAAQMD-screening tool does not include local roadways that meet BAAQMD’s “major roadway” criteria for the project area. Therefore, traffic volumes were retrieved for roadways within 1,000 feet of the project site experiencing between 10,000 and 30,000 daily vehicle trips and calculated for their associated health risks. Those results are added to and shown in Table 7.
• Freeway Screening Analysis Tool. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool that contains preestimated cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration increases for highways within the Bay Area.

The nearest freeways to the proposed project include SR-80, approximately 3,400 feet east of the project site.
• Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared a GIS tool with the location of permitted sources and provides a health risk calculator that estimates and refines screen-level cancer risk, a non-cancer health hazard index, and PM2.5 concentrations using emissions data from BAAQMD's permitting database. 22 For each emissions source, the BAAQMD provides conservative estimates of cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations. Based on information from the GIS tool, one BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources exist within the vicinity of 1,000 feet of the project site. • Rail Screening Tools. The BAAQMD prepared GIS tools that contain estimated cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from railroad operations at any point within the Air Basin. One existing railway is immediately adjacent to the south side of the project boundary. No other railways are within 1,000 feet of the project site. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2014. Community Air Risk Evaluation Program. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community-air-risk-evaluation-care-program.

Accessed March 8, 2022. 22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Permitted Stationary Sources Risk and Hazards. Website:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Cumulative Health Risk Assessment at the Maximum Impacted Sensitive Receptor A cumulative HRA was performed that examined the cumulative impacts of the proposed project’s construction emissions and sources of TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site.

The cumulative health risk results, including health risks from the existing stationary source, are summarized during project construction in Table 7. Cumulative health risk results shown therein are representative of the health risks to the MIR that would experience the highest concentration of pollutants, which represents the off-site residential MIR, as it would experience a greater potential impact on human health than any other previously identified MIR.

Table 7: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MIR during Construction Source/Impact Scenario Source Type
Distance
from MIR1
(feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
HI
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Project MIR
Project Construction Diesel Construction
Equipment – 6.21 0.01 0.05
Existing Stationary Sources (BAAQMD Facility Number)2
The Pump House
(ID 110796)
Gas Dispensing
Facility 1,835 0.24 ND 0.00
Roadways
Existing Local Roadway Network – 0.11 ND <0.01
San Pablo Avenue 270 2.84 ND 0.05
Rail
Existing Rail Lines (Burlington Northern Santa) – 11.71 ND 0.02 Freeways
Existing Freeways (SR-80) 3,400 9.18 ND 0.18
Cumulative Health Risks
Cumulative Maximum with Project DPM Emissions 30.29 0.01 0.31 BAAQMD’s Cumulative Thresholds of Significance 100 10 0.8 Threshold Exceedance? No No No
Notes:

HI = Hazard Index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
ND = no data available
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 The MIR above represents the greatest impacted MIR, which is the residence immediately adjacent to the east of the project site. 2 Assumes emissions remain constant with time.

Source: Appendix A.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 51 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx As noted in Table 7, the cumulative impacts from the project construction and existing sources of TACs would be less than the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance. Thus, the cumulative health risk impacts from project construction would be less than significant.

Criterion 3: Operational Emissions
The proposed project would result in the development and operation of 40 single-family houses. As previously discussed under Impact 3.2(b), the proposed project would not result in a potential CO hotspot. As described in the TIA prepared for the proposed project, an estimated 377 daily vehicle trips would be generated by the proposed project.23 As a residential development, it is anticipated that the proposed project would not generate noticeable heavy-duty vehicle trips.

Because the proposed project would generate 377 daily passenger vehicle trips and nearly all passenger vehicles are gasoline-fueled, the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of DPM emissions during operation; however, gasoline-fueled vehicles would still emit relatively small amounts of gasoline TACs such as benzene, isopentane, and toluene during project operation. Nonetheless, the potential cancer risks associated with non-diesel TACs emitted from gasoline vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin are substantially less than the potential cancer risks associated with DPM emissions24 and are therefore not included in this analysis. Furthermore, these emissions would be dispersed throughout the local roadway network and would not solely be generated at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation.

Criterion 4: Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Assessment
As discussed in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicle traffic volumes during project operation to substantiate creating a CO hotspot. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of CO emissions. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Summary
As described above, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors at nearby residences, schools, daycares, or community centers to substantial pollutant concentrations during either construction or operations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. As stated in the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the populations and is subjective. The BAAQMD does not have a recommended 23 TKJM Transportation Consultants. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis for 215 Skelly Residential Project. Accessed March 7, 2022. 24 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Oakland Railyard. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//railyard/hra/up_oak_hra.pdf?_ga=2.229617876.913681903.1594937953- 503090677.1594937953. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx odor threshold for construction activities. However, the BAAQMD recommends operational screening criteria that are based on the distance between receptors and types of sources known to generate odors. For projects within the screening distances, the BAAQMD has the following threshold for project operations:

An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distance shown in Table 3-3 [of the BAAQMD’s guidance].

Two circumstances have the potential to cause odor impacts:

1. A source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, or

2. A sensitive receptor land use is proposed near an existing or planned source of odor.

Projects that would site an odor source or a receptor farther than the applicable screening distance, shown in Table 8 below, would not likely result in a significant odor impact.

Table 8: Odor Screening Distances
Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

April 19. Website: https://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 March 8, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 53 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Project Construction
Diesel exhaust and ROGs would be emitted during construction of the proposed project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and would be short-term and intermittent in duration and frequency. Therefore, project construction would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As such, construction odor impacts would be less than significant.

Project Operation
While potential impacts from the environment on the project is not a specific CEQA issue, the BAAQMD recommends an evaluation of potential impacts from existing odor sources on land use projects that introduce new odor receptors. Land uses typically associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste disposal facilities, agricultural operations, or other operations listed in Table 8. Using Google Maps, three automobile body shops, one wastewater treatment facility, and three coffee shops were identified within the associated screening distances. Public records retrieved from the BAAQMD show that one odor complaint was filed for the Wastewater Treatment Facility during 2018 to 2021. The complaint was investigated by BAAQMD staff and no further complaint was filed. The number of complaints for this facility is below the BAAQMD’s threshold as mentioned above. Therefore, the proposed project as a receptor during operation would not experience peculiar odor impacts from nearby sources.

The proposed project would construct 40 new single-family houses, whose operations could lead to odors from associated residential laundry cleaning, vehicle exhaust, outdoor cooking, and waste disposal. However, such odors generated by project operation would be small in quantity and duration and would not pose an objectionable odor impact to future and existing receptors.

To summarize, the proposed project as a source or receptor would not generate any peculiar emissions nor odors that adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1 Implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices During Construction The following dust control measures, as recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), shall be included in the design of the proposed project and implemented during construction:
• All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least two times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes, as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ACTM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations. Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. The City and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 55 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.4 Biological Resources
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 United States 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, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States 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 wildlife
nursery sites?
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?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section evaluates potential effects on biological resources that may result from project implementation. The analysis is based on the following references materials provided in Appendix B:
• Results from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California database searches.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx • Biological Resources Analysis (BRA) prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc. • Arborist Report prepared by Trees, Bugs, Dirt Landscape Consulting and Training 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. For the purpose of this analysis, special-status species refers to all species formally listed as threatened and/or endangered under the following:
• Federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). • California Species of Special Concern, designated as Fully Protected by the CDFW and given a CNPS rank25 or designated as special-status by city, county, or other reginal planning documents:
- Rank 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere - Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere - Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere - Rank 3: Plants about which more information is needed - Rank 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
Federal and State-listed threatened and/or endangered species are legally protected under Endangered Species Act/CESA. The designated special-status species listed by the CNPS have no direct legal protection but require an analysis of significance of potential impacts under CEQA Guidelines. Special-status plant and wildlife species typically occur in undeveloped areas. Although it is less likely, it is also possible for them to occur within developed areas.

A site visit was conducted by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Biologist, Robert Carroll, on January 27, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The site visit was conducted to confirm existing conditions on the project site as identified by Olberding Environmental, Inc. The project site is a former residence which contained barns and paddocks for horses and other livestock. The project site is bounded by dense residential developments to the north, west, and east; Pinole Creek to the southwest; and an active railroad line to the south.

There are six habitat types present on-site (Exhibit 8): developed (1.94 acre), ruderal grassland (4.40 acre), perennial drainage (0.10 acre), riparian woodland (0.17), eucalyptus woodland (0.86), and seasonal wetland (0.034 acre). The majority of project site is composed of ruderal grassland habitat; dominant vegetation observed within this area at the time of FCS’s survey included wild oat (Avena fatua), barbed wild oat (Avena barbata), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), ripgut brome (Bromus 25 All plants appearing on the CNPS List 1 or 2 are considered to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15830 criteria. While only some of the plants ranked 3 and 4 meet the definitions of threatened or endangered species, the CNPS recommends that all Rank 3 and Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration under CEQA.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 57 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx diandrus), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and a mix of other non-native species.

Special-status Plant Species
A plant’s potential to occur on the project site was based on presence of suitable habitats, soil types, and occurrences recorded by the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California and CNDDB within the Mare Island quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles.26 Based on a database search of the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, a total of 50 special-status plant species have been recorded with potential to occur within the region.

Because of previous development and current disturbances at the project site, and/or lack of specific suitable habitat types and conditions (including edaphic conditions such as serpentine soils), it was determined that none are expected to occur within the project site and are therefore excluded from further analysis, see Table 2 of the BRA (Appendix B) for a species-specific discussion of all 50 special-status plant species.

Special-status Wildlife Species
The potential for wildlife to occur on the project site was based on the presence of suitable habitats and occurrences recorded by the CNDDB within the Mare Island quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles.27 Sixty-three special-status wildlife species have been recorded with the potential to occur within greater vicinity of the project site, based on the CNDDB database search. Fifty-three of the 63 special-status wildlife species were determined either not likely to occur or to have no potential to occur due to absence of suitable habitat and/or site-specific habitat conditions and are therefore excluded from further analysis, see Table 2 of the BRA (Appendix B), which includes a speciesspecific discussion of all 63 special-status wildlife species.

Ten special-status wildlife species were determined to have at least a low potential to occur on-site or within disturbance distance: monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus); nesting birds, including Redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); roosting bats, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), silverhaired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). These 10 species are addressed in more detail below.

Roosting bats: pallid bat, hoary bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, silver-haired bat, and Yuma myotis
The project site contains vacant structures and trees that could provide suitable bat-roosting habitat.

Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats due to removal of potential roosting habitat during project construction. These activities could potentially subject bats to risk of death or injury, and they are likely to avoid using the area until such construction activities have dissipated or ceased. Relocation, in turn, could cause hunger or stress among individual bats by displacing them into adjacent territories belonging to other individuals; impacts to these species would be significant. MM 26 Oberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis. Skelly Property City of Hercules, California. 27 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 58 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx BIO-1A would require a roosting bat survey to be conducted prior to the start of project construction to reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels. If bats are identified on the project site, MM BIO-1A details modifications to construction activity that would be taken by a qualified Biologist to exclude bats from the site.

Nesting birds: Red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, and white-tailed kite The trees and shrubs present throughout the project site and riparian vegetation adjacent to the perennial drainage provide nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Fish and Game Code. These species include white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, and common songbirds (passerine birds). Construction activities could disturb nesting and breeding birds in trees and shrubs within and around the project site. Potential impacts on special-status and migratory birds that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project include destruction of eggs or occupied nests, mortality of young, and abandonment of nests with eggs or young birds prior to fledging. If MBTA and/or Fish and Game Code protected species’ nests are present, impacts to these species would be significant. MM BIO-1B would require pre-construction surveys and modification of construction activities to avoid disturbance of any active nests, including active nests of special-status bird species, if present, which would reduce impacts to migratory and nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and Fish and Game Code (including specialstatus species such as Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite) to less than significant levels.

Monarch butterfly
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) ranges from southern Canada throughout the United States and Central and South America. Each autumn (August through October) monarch butterflies migrate south to overwinter in massive aggregations in coastal California and in central Mexico. Monarchs typically reach their overwintering grounds by September or October. Monarchs select overwintering sites based on protection from high wind and storms, absence of freezing temperatures, presence of spatially variable light, such as full sun, shade, and dappled sunlight, the presence of high humidity, and availability of water. These aggregations of sometimes millions of individuals can be found in sheltered groves of trees such as eucalyptus, Monterey, and cypress.28 There is one recorded occurrence of a monarch butterfly overwintering site within 5 miles of the project site. A population of overwintering monarchs was observed within blue gum eucalyptus trees at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline from 1980 to 2011, approximately 3.5 miles west of the project site. The project site contains blue gum eucalyptus trees that could provide suitable habitat for overwintering monarch butterflies. For these reasons, the monarch butterfly has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. MM BIO-1C would require an overwintering survey and identifies actions to avoid disturbance of any active overwintering monarch butterflies on the project site to less than significant levels. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? 28 Oberding Environmental, Inc. 2022. Biological Resources Analysis. Skelly Property, City of Hercules, California.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 59 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The CDFW maintains a list of natural communities that classifies vegetation types found within the State of California and ranks them based on rarity. Communities ranked S1-S3 are considered sensitive natural communities. 29 Wetlands and riparian habitats are also typically considered sensitive natural communities and are addressed in the environmental review process. The project site contains two sensitive natural communities: Seasonal Wetlands and Riparian (Riparian Woodland/Perennial Drainage). Each of these natural communities are discussed below.

Riparian Habitat (Riparian Woodland and Perennial Drainage [0.27 acre]) The southern boundary of the project site contains a perennial drainage with associated riparian vegetation that covers 0.27 acres of the project site. Riparian vegetation communities are considered sensitive. The perennial drainage (0.10 acre/454 linear feet) contained standing water through most of its length. Dominate species observed included Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English ivy (Hedera helix). This feature is surrounded by riparian woodland habitat. Riparian woodland habitat (0.17 acre) is dominated by a mix of both native and non-native trees such as blue gum eucalyptus, coast redwood, California buckeye, arroyo willow, and red willow.

Seasonal Wetlands (0.034 acre)
Two seasonal wetlands are located along the northern boundary of the project site. Dominant vegetation observed within this feature includes but is not limited to bristly ox-tongue, rabbitsfoot grass, salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and common plantain (Plantago major). Naturally occurring seasonal wetland plant communities can generally be considered sensitive natural communities.

Proposed project construction would avoid direct impacts to on-site sensitive natural communities.

While the proposed project would avoid direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, project construction has the potential for indirect (temporary) adverse impacts to on-site aquatic features.

Potential temporary indirect impacts include pollutant loading, increased erosion and sedimentation, and debris dispersal. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to on-site sensitive natural communities to less than significant levels by avoiding work in riparian habitat and creek areas, implementing erosion control measures, and the prevention of substances toxic to fish and wildlife from leaching into riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities.
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?
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site contains two seasonal wetlands along the northern boundary of the project site. As noted above, project design would avoid direct impacts to State or federally protected wetlands. Implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect adverse impacts to State or federally protected wetlands to less than significant 29 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Natural Communities List, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#sensitive%20natural%20communities. Accessed April 12, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 60 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx levels by avoiding work in wetland areas, implementing erosion control measures, and preventing substances toxic to fish and wildlife from leaching into wetlands. 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 wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact. The main wildlife corridor within the vicinity of the project site is Pinole Creek. Pinole Creek is located to the southwest and is separated from the project site by residential development and a public walking trail. The perennial drainage located on the southern boundary of the project site empties into Pinole Creek. Project construction would avoid directly or indirectly impacting either the perennial drainage or Pinole Creek by implementing MM BIO-2; which calls for avoiding work near aquatic features, preventing erosion (sedimentation or toxic substance runoff or leaching), and constructing wildlife exclusion fencing. Due to these avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impacts on wildlife corridors or to impede the use of nursery sites, therefore project-related impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The removal of mature trees is regulated by the City of Hercules through Municipal Code Title 4, Chapter 15. Mature trees are defined by the City as any living tree with a trunk diameter measuring 12 inches or greater when measured at roughly 4.5 feet above the ground. According to the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), there are 95 trees on or near the project site that qualify as mature trees. Based on the proposed project’s grading plan and the Municipal Code, the Arborist Report recommended the preservation of 18 trees and the removal of 76 trees.
30 Implementation of MM BIO-3, which requires
a tree replacement plan prior to receiving a City tree removal permit, would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances and any impacts to mature trees would be reduced to less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project does not lie within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1A Roosting Bats
30 Trees, Bugs, Dirt Landscape Consulting and Training. 2022. Arborist Report, 215 Skelly – Hercules, CA. March.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 61 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx • A qualified Biologist with relevant roosting bat experience shall conduct a survey for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat or bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.). • Visual surveys shall include trees and structures within 500 feet of project construction activities (where accessible). Not more than 2 weeks prior to building demolition and/or tree removal, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey the trees and structures proposed for removal for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, removal may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one-way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the space, the Biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Structure and tree removal shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. Bat exclusion shall only occur between February 15 and April 15, and from August 15 through October 30, to avoid impacts on non-volant (i.e., nonflying) individuals.

MM BIO-1B Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).
• If the project requires trees to be removed during the nesting season (usually February through August), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance (including tree removal) to determine whether or not active nests are present. • If an active nest is located during pre-construction survey, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on the species and anticipated disturbance level. (The California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors.) A qualified Biologist shall delineate the avoidance buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the avoidance buffer(s).

The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest during construction activities to prevent any potential impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx MM BIO-1C Overwintering Monarch Butterfly
Project activities such as vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted between November 1 and July 31 (outside of the overwintering season) to the extent feasible. If such activities must be initiated during the overwintering season (August 1 through October 31), a pre-construction overwintering survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist no more than 7 days prior to vegetation removal, grading, or initial ground disturbance. The survey shall include the disturbance area and surrounding 250 feet to identify the location and status of any colonies that could potentially be affected either directly or indirectly by project activities. If no colonies are present, then project activities can commence as scheduled. If a colony is present, project construction shall cease immediately to avoid all direct and indirect impacts and report the presence of the colony to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and follow all recommendations provided by USFWS and CDFW.

MM BIO-2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures for On-Site Aquatic Features • No work within the Riparian Corridor and Creek Banks or Bed. No work (including vegetation removal) shall take place within this area unless specifically permitted by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). • Erosion Control: At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter on-site aquatic features and their associated habitats. Erosion control measures shall be utilized throughout all phases of operation where sediment runoff from the project may enter these aquatic features. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid erosion, uncontrolled stormwater runoff and bank deterioration shall be implemented, following the requirements of the proposed project’s Stormwater Control Plan, and typically include silt fencing, coir rolls, and/or straw bale dikes. • Prevention of Toxic Substances/Pollution. No substances toxic to fish and wildlife shall be discharged or allowed to leach into the aquatic features present on-site.

Reasonable precautions to protect aquatic habitats from pollution with harmful materials (e.g., fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents) shall be implemented.

Specifically, all potentially hazardous materials shall be controlled, cleaned up, and properly disposed of in accordance with the project’s water quality control permits and plans. Materials deleterious or toxic to fish and wildlife, including, but not limited to, asphalt, tires, concrete, construction materials, treated wood, and creosote containing materials, shall not be stockpiled within 150 feet any aquatic feature present on-site.
• Wildlife Exclusion Fencing and Monitoring. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing (WEF) shall be constructed around the entire perimeter of the project site and the northern riparian dripline associated with the perennial drainage, to prevent wildlife from entering the work area. A qualified Biologist shall be on-site to monitor the installation of WEF. WEF shall be in place and regularly maintained during project City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 63 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx implementation. Fencing shall be removed within 72 hours of completion of work, and temporarily impacted areas shall be restored to pre-project conditions.

MM BIO-3 Protection of Mature Trees (Tree Inventory and Replacement Plan) • The project applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the City’s tree ordinance (Title 4, Chapter 15), which includes a submittal of a Tree Replacement Plan to the City prior to the removal of trees and/or prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit. Prior to the submission of the Tree Replacement Plan, a certified arborist shall conduct a Tree Inventory to determine the number and type of trees scheduled to be removed.
• Following the completion of the Tree Inventory, a certified arborist shall complete the Tree Replacement Plan and shall designate the approximate locations, number, and sizes of trees to be planted. The Tree Replacement Plan shall include a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for City-protected trees impacted by project construction.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
21180006 • 04/2022 | 8_habit
at_map.cdr CITY OF HERCULE
S

SKELLY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Exhibit 8
Habitat Map
Source: Olberding Environmental, 12/3/2020. I

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 67 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) 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
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural and tribal cultural resources (TCRs) setting and potential effects from the proposed project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. This section is based on a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I CRA) prepared by FCS on April 7, 2022, and a Historical Built Environment Assessment prepared by South Environmental on March 10, 2022. Descriptions and analysis in this section are also based on information provided by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Northwest Information Center (NWIC), the current inventories of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks (CHL) list, California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, and the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). Non-confidential records search results and other correspondence are included in Appendix C.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 68 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Northwest Information Center Records Search
On January 12, 2022, a records search for the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius was conducted at the NWIC located at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, historical aerial photographs, and historical maps to evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historical archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project site.

The results of the records search indicated that there are no recorded cultural resources located within the project site. However, 12 resources (four prehistoric and eight historic) have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site. In addition, four area-specific survey reports are on file with the NWIC for the 0.5-mile search radius; two reports (S-001128 and S-036815) address the project site, indicating that the project site has previously been surveyed for cultural resources. A records search map identifying the proposed project boundaries and 0.5-mile search radius and the relevant non-confidential records search results are included in Appendix C.

Pedestrian Survey
On January 20, 2022, FCS conducted a pedestrian survey for unrecorded cultural resources within the project site. The survey began in the northeast corner of the project site and moved east, using north–south transects spaced at 15-meter intervals whenever possible. All areas of proposed development were closely inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. All areas of the exposed ground surface were examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal, and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics). In addition, the project site was inspected for culturally modified soils or other indicators of potential historic or prehistoric resources. This includes raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools such as obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.

Because of vegetation, visibility of native soils was less than 5 percent. Native soils were most clearly visible in artificial cuts and in areas where bioturbation had exposed subsurface soils. Other sections of poor visibility were intermittently inspected using a hand trowel. Visible observed soils were composed of dark brown loam interspersed with small (2-3 cm) pebbles consisting of quartz, schist, and basalt. No prehistoric artifacts, cultural resources, or raw materials commonly used in the manufacture of tools (e.g., obsidian, Franciscan chert, etc.) were found within the project site.

Close inspection of structures at the site, however, revealed the presence of structures over 45 years in age. Approximately two weeks before the pedestrian survey, two of the structures in the central portion of the project site were extensively damaged by a man-made fire. Pedestrian survey photos can be found in Appendix C.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 69 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Native American Heritage Commission
On December 20, 2021, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on March 11, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File search failed to identify and recorded Native American cultural resources within the project site. The NAHC included a list of seven tribal representatives that may offer additional information regarding the proposed project. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential TCRs that may be affected by implementation of the proposed project are addressed, a letter containing proposed project information and requesting additional information was sent to each tribal representative on March 11, 2022. On March 23, 2022, a response was received from the Confederate Villages of Lisjan Tribe requesting results from the NWIC. This information was provided to the tribe on April 6, 2022. The Tribe replied on April 20, 2022, indicating that the Tribe has no further information to supply about the proposed site for this plan. No other responses have been received to date. Correspondence related to the NAHC record searches and tribal representatives can be found in Appendix C.

Historic Built -Assessment
The term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §5020.1(j)). One potentially significant historic built-environment resource over 50 years old was identified within the project site: the previously identified Ellerhorst Home (P-07-001005), which consists of the main residence built, c. 1873, along with several other outbuildings and structures. The entire property was evaluated for historical significance on the appropriate set of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms in consideration of CRHR criteria and integrity requirements. Although the property has important historical associations with early settlement patterns and significant individuals in Hercules, a recent fire destroyed much of the main residence such that the property can no longer convey these important associations. Therefore, as a result of compromised integrity, the property was found ineligible for the CRHR or NRHP, and should not be considered a significant historic resource under CEQA. The built environment assessment report can be found in Appendix C.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “historical resources” as resources listed in the CRHR or a local register, determined significant by the lead agency, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR. The criteria for eligibility are generally set by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the NRHP, and which recognizes properties that are significant at the federal, State, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association relative to American Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture.31 In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible.

The records search conducted at the NWIC determined that there are eight historic-era resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, none of which are located within the project boundaries.

The BERD and pedestrian survey identified a potentially significant historic built-environment resource (the Ellerhorst Home: P-07-001005), however a Historic Built Environment Assessment conducted by South Environmental determined the resource was not eligible for the CRHR or NRHP, and therefore, should not be considered a significant historic resource under CEQA.

The project site does not contain any buildings, structures, or objects that could potentially qualify as historical resources under CEQA. Therefore, there would be no impacts to historical resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under either of these categories.

Although the results from the NWIC indicate that there are no recorded archaeological resources within the project site, four prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within a 0.5 mile radius of the site. Additionally, poor soil visibility during the pedestrian field survey and the presence of a historic-era homestead dating to 1873 on the property increase the possibility that undiscovered archaeological resources may be encountered and impacted by construction activities.

Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would constitute a potentially significant impact.

Therefore, MM CUL-1, requires that a qualified Archaeologist be present during the demolition of buildings at the site, grubbing and ground clearance, and during initial grading and project-related ground disturbance. Furthermore, MM CUL-1 sets forth the steps to be taken should any significant cultural resources be discovered during construction activities. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project site. While it is unlikely that human remains exist within or near the project site, there is always a possibility that subsurface construction activities associated 31 National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 2021. Publications of the National Register of Historic Places. Website:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm. Accessed May 1, 2021.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 71 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-2 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. Along with compliance with required guidelines and statutes, implementation of MM CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) 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 Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. A review of the CRHR, local registers of historical resources, the NWIC records search results, and NAHC Sacred Lands File search results failed to identify any previously listed TCRs that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. However, should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-2, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. FCS conducted tribal outreach with the seven tribal representatives identified by the NAHC. In compliance with AB 52, the City of Hercules distributed letters to Native American tribes that have previously requested notification for AB 52 consultation, notifying each tribe of the opportunity to consult with the City of Hercules regarding the proposed project. At the time of this publication, no requests for consultation have been received. Consultation letters were mailed on April 12, 2022. While the City of Hercules has not identified any additional significant TCRs meeting the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-2, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present during the demolition of buildings at the Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx site, grubbing and ground clearance, and during initial grading and project-related ground disturbance. Should exposed soils indicate archaeological resources may be present, archaeological monitoring of all project related ground disturbance will continue as determined necessary by the Archaeologist. In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop within a 100-foot radius of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the lead agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historical dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site should be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA Guidelines.

If the resources are determined to be unique historical resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the monitor and recommended to the lead agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the lead agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the lead agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

MM CUL-2 Should previously unknown buried human remains be discovered during construction of the proposed project, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code applies, and the following procedures shall be followed.

In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. In this instance, once projectrelated earthmoving begins, and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 73 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or
2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the Commission;
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in 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?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Energy is generally transmitted either in the form of electricity, measured in kilowatts (kW) 32 or
megawatts (MW),33 or natural gas measured in US Therms. 34 Electricity is used primarily for lighting,
appliances, and other uses associated with the proposed project. Natural gas is used primarily for space and water heating, when applicable. This section discusses how the proposed project is consistent with the significance thresholds contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant impact.

The anticipated construction schedule for the proposed project was assumed to begin in 2023 and last approximately 13 months. Should the construction schedule be delayed to later years, construction energy demand would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving activities. Project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks. 32 1 kW = 1,000 watts; A watt is a derived unit of power that measure rate of energy conversion. 1 watt is equivalent to work being done at a rate of 1 joule of energy per second. In electrical terms, 1 watt is the power dissipated by a current of 1 ampere flowing across a resistance of 1 volt. 33 1 MW = 1 million watts 34 A unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units. A British thermal unit is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree Fahrenheit at a constant pressure of 1 atmosphere.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 75 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, bulldozers, frontend loaders, forklifts, and cranes. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 24,300 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emissions Factors model (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate 182,808 VMT and a combined 8,254 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

Other equipment could include construction lighting, field services (office trailers), and electrically driven equipment such as pumps and other tools. Singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas, generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720-square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 6,555 kilowatthours (kWh) during the 13-month construction (Appendix A).

The proposed project’s construction is not anticipated to result in unusually high energy use.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with State regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, the overall construction schedule and process is already designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption, and energy impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Energy consumption of the proposed project is summarized in Table 9.

Table 9: Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Electricity Consumption 256,033 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 1,540,000 kBTU/year
Total Fuel Consumption 29,686 gallons/year
Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Notes:
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh = kilowatt-hour
Source: Appendix A
Unmitigated operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 256,033 kWh of electricity and an estimated 1,540,000 kilo-British Thermal Unit (kBTU) of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164-168, the proposed project would be considered to result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would conflict with the following energy conservation goals:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Decreasing Overall Per Capita Energy Consumption
The TIA determined that the countywide35 residential VMT per capita generated by the Contra Costa Transportation Analysis travel demand model is 19.78, while the proposed project would generate

14.45 VMT. As discussed in Section 2.17, Transportation, the proposed project would result in an approximately 27 percent reduction in per capita VMT from regional average estimates. As such, the proposed project would result in an overall decrease in per capita transportation energy consumption with respect to employee transportation energy resources.

In 2020, the County consumed a total 8,622,380 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity and 1,062 million US Therms, or approximately 106,174,600 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) as well as a population of 1,149,853 residents.36,37 As such, the County currently has an estimated per capita energy consumption of 7,499 kWh and 92.3 MMBtu per year. As shown in Table 9, the proposed project would result in up to 256,033 kWh per year and up to 1,540,000 kBTU/year per year.

Considering the City’s average persons per household of 3.05,38 the proposed project, consisting of 40 dwelling units, would result in the introduction of an estimated 122 new residents. However, using a more conservative estimate based on Contra Costa County’s average persons per household of 2.86, the proposed project, consisting of 40 dwelling units, would result in the introduction of an estimated 115 new residents. Therefore, based on the more conservative estimate, the proposed project would result in a per capita energy consumption of 2,226 kWh per year and 13.39 MMBtu per year, both of which would be below the County’s average electricity and natural gas 35 County estimates are utilized for purposes of this discussion rather than City estimates because relevant energy consumption data is not available at the City level. 36 California Energy Commission. 2022. Energy Consumption Database. Website: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed April 13, 2022. 37 California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State. Website:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/. Accessed April 13, 2022. 38 Ibid.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 77 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx consumption rates. As such, the proposed project would contribute to the overall energy conservation goal of reducing per capita energy consumption.

Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code energy efficiency standards. For example, the proposed project would install solar photovoltaic systems capable of generating 78,200 kWh of electricity per year, and low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads that are compliant with the California Building Standards Code (CBC). California Building Code energy efficiency standards include a broad set of energy conservation requirements that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. Compliance with the CBC would help reduce the amount of energy required for lighting, water heating, and heating and air conditioning in buildings and promote energy conservation. As a result, the increase in energy conservation and efficiency would reduce the amount of potentially fossil fuel-sourced electricity consumption, and thereby reducing project reliance on fossil fuels.

Project-related vehicle trips would consume fuel throughout the life of the proposed project due to residents’ vehicles and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the project site. This analysis evaluated operational fuel consumption based on the proposed project’s operational assumptions.

Regional access to the project site is provided by SR-80, which is 3,400 feet east of the project site.

As a result, the proposed project is located near regional and local roadways that would provide convenient access for future residents and would not result in excessively long vehicle miles traveled. Thus, the location of the proposed project would help minimize fossil fuel reliance with respect to transportation fuel consumption.

Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to increase the reliance on renewable energy sources. As the proposed project constitutes a low-rise residential development, it would be required by the California Building Code to incorporate rooftop solar, provided no code exemptions apply to the proposed project such as limited roof space or an alternative contribution to a community solar or battery storage facility. If the proposed project were to seek a code exemption for rooftop solar under the premise that there is not sufficient rooftop space to support the installation of a rooftop solar system, then the proposed project would not include on-site renewable energy generation due to technical limitations. Similarly, if the proposed project were to seek another code exemption for rooftop solar, the exemption would require that the developer solely or by contribution construct and maintain a community solar facility or a community battery storage facility, which would likely provide the proposed project with and/or facilitate the proposed project’s use of renewable energy. Should a future community solar facility or community battery storage facility be proposed as a result of the proposed project seeking a code exemption for rooftop solar that does not directly benefit the proposed project’s consumption of renewable energy sources, that future facility would benefit the community’s cumulative renewable energy consumption.

As such, the proposed project would incorporate renewable energy technologies consistent with the CBC, thereby actively increasing future residents’ reliance on renewable energy sources. Moreover, Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx the proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure standards for the development type, such as pre-wiring to facilitate future installation of EV charging stations. As a result, the proposed project would be incrementally increasing overall reliance on renewable energy sources by including on-site renewable energy generation technologies and incorporating EV charging infrastructure to facilitate the future use of EVs.

Considering the above analysis, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficiency, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact.

Construction
The proposed project would result in energy consumption through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations. There are no renewable energy standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project. As a result, construction would not conflict with or obstruct any regulations adopted for the purposes of increasing the use of renewable energy. Furthermore, it is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to construction energy efficiency and use of fossil fuels or decreased use of renewable resources.

Operation
The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. In 2019, PG&E obtained 29 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources while the remaining electricity was sourced from nuclear (44 percent),and large hydroelectric (27 percent). 39 PG&E also offers a Solar Choice 50
percent option that sources 64 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources and a Solar Choice 100 percent option that sources 100 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources. Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity provider meets the State’s current objective of 33 percent. The proposed project’s electricity provider would also be required to meet the State’s future objective of 60 percent of in-State electricity sales being generated from renewable energy sources by 2030. The buildings would be designed in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings as applicable. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. For example, the proposed project would install 39 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2019 Power Content Label. Website:
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2020/1220- PowerContent-ADA.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2021.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 79 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx solar photovoltaic systems capable of generating an estimated 78,200 kWh of electricity per year and low-flow plumbing fixtures and irrigation heads that are compliant with Title 24 Standards.

The City has not adopted a Climate Action Plan, therefore the City’s General Plan would be referenced herein as the applicable local plan adopted for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The City adopted its General Plan in 1998 and recently updated its Housing Element in 2015.40 The Housing Element mentions that the City works with the utility provider PG&E to offer a range of incentives to encourage energy conservation, including rebates for energy-efficient appliances and home improvements. The Housing Element also states its Goal 6.0: “Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Hercules” with the following policies:

Policy 6.1 Promote the use of Green Building techniques in residential development.

Policy 6.2 Ensure all new residential development complies with energy efficiency performance standards of the California Building Standards Code.

Policy 6.3 Utilize site planning techniques to allow passive energy efficiencies through solar access, landscaping and building orientation.

Policy 6.4 Seek opportunities to educate the public about energy conservation.

Policy 6.5 Encourage energy conservation measures and solar systems in existing homes where feasible and cost-effective.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (for example, EV charging infrastructure and solar requirements) in effect at the time building permit applications are received. In doing so, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy conservation policies stated in the City’s General Plan because it would comply with the relevant solar power building code, utilize passive energy efficiency through low water demand landscaping, and comply with other relevant California Building Code standards. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy efficiency and renewable energy standards consistency.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
40 City of Hercules. Housing Element of General Plan. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/general-plan.

Accessed March 8, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 80 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 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?
Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. on November 11, 2021 (Appendix D).

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 81 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Setting
Based on the City of Hercules’ geographic location being within the San Francisco Bay Area, the City is within a seismically active region. The proposed project is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Coast Range Geomorphic Province is characterized by a series of northwest-trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys that align subparallel with the San Andreas Fault System.41 The Northern California region contains a number of active, potentially active, and inactive faults, and it is considered a region of high seismic activity.

Five major faults are located near the City of Hercules, including the San Andreas (approximately 21 miles to the southwest of the City), Hayward (approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the City), Concord-Green Valley (approximately 11 miles southwest of the City), Calaveras (approximately 40 miles to the southeast), and Rodgers Creek (approximately 10 miles to the west) faults. Two additional, inactive faults, the Pinole and Franklin, are located in the City’s vicinity; however, both are inactive as future movement along the two faults are unlikely. According to the Hercules General Plan Safety Element, the USGS has estimated that there is a 67 percent probability that there could be one or more earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater in the Bay Area in the next 30 years.42 The nearest major fault is the Pinole Fault located approximately 0.3 mile from the project site.43 The nearest known active fault (defined by movement occurring less than 11,700 years ago) is the Hayward Fault, located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site.

The exploratory borings drilled as part of the geotechnical field investigation encountered groundwater at depths between 11 and 13 feet on the western portion of the site. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings on the eastern portion of the site. Groundwater elevation may fluctuate based on seasonality, nearby development activities, and urbanization, among other factors. The ABAG has published an interactive map of liquefaction susceptibility within the Bay Area. This mapping indicates that the site has a low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction.44 Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, however, the project site is located in a seismically active region. The nearest known active fault is the Hayward Fault, located approximately 3.8 miles west of the project site. Construction and 41 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at 215 Skelly, Hercules, California. November 11. 42 City of Hercules. 1998. City of Hercules General Plan – Safety Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 16, 2022. 43 Quantum Geotechnical, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development at 215 Skelly, Hercules, California. November 11. 44 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 82 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx design would use standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC, which would reduce impacts in case of rupture of the Hayward Fault. In addition, the proposed project would comply with applicable General Plan policies outlined in the Safety Element relating to geologic hazards. Therefore, the possibility of the proposed project directly or indirectly experiencing significant fault rupture is low and project impacts related to the rupture of a known earthquake fault are considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project is located within a seismically active region, and strong shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project, which could damage future improvements on the site and expose people to injury. To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the proposed project shall be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC. The 2019 CBC requires use-modified spectral accelerations and velocities for most structural designs. In addition, a Geotechnical Investigation has been prepared for the proposed project. MM GEO-1 must be implemented to ensure the Geotechnical Investigation recommendations regarding site grading, demolition, foundation design, and construction are incorporated into the project plans and the City reviews and approves these elements. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure project design and construction plans take into consideration the unique site-specific conditions to ensure the structures provide a solid foundation and withstand seismic activities. Therefore, implementation of MM GEO-1 and compliance with CBC requirements would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loosely water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. Variables that contribute to liquefaction include age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and groundwater level. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. Although the site is not located within a known liquefaction hazard zone evaluated by the California Geological Survey (CGS), according to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site has low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction as it is assumed to have a design groundwater table of 15 feet for depth. Furthermore, based on the Geotechnical Investigation, ground borings indicated that the potential for liquefaction on the project site is considered nil.

Furthermore, any potential liquefaction hazards would be minimized by using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site has not been evaluated for seismic landslide hazards. The Geotechnical Investigation’s description of the project site notes there is a near vertical slope along the majority of the eastern border of the site. According to the General Plan Safety Element, City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 83 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx landslides have occurred in the City of Hercules, particularly in the southeastern part of the City. An earthquake could trigger landslides, particularly upon steeper slopes where slide activity has already occurred. The amount of sliding would be intensified if an earthquake were to occur during wet winter months when the slopes were in a saturated, weakened condition. According to Figure 10, Landslide Susceptibility, of the Safety Element, the project site has mostly low to moderate susceptibility of landslides, with an area of high susceptibility to landslides on the southeastern portion of the site.
45 As such, MM GEO-1 would require the project applicant to incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans to reduce potential geological hazards such as landslides. Additionally, the proposed project would be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC.

In addition, the proposed project would incorporate recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation into project design and construction to reduce impacts related to landslides with implementation of MM GEO-1. As such, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. During construction, the proposed project would include grading and excavation that would expose a substantial amount of soils. In addition, the Geotechnical Investigation noted that grading activities during the rainy season on cohesive soils would be hampered by excessive moisture; therefore, it was recommended that measures to control potential erosion be included in project design and construction plans. Because the proposed project would disturb more than one acre of land, it would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and to comply with its conditions and requirements, which are designed to minimize potential erosion issues. The proposed project would comply with the terms of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City Municipal Code Section 5.8, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP includes BMPs to ensure reduction of pollutants from construction activities potentially entering surface waters. Additionally, implementation of the SWPPP would also prevent pollutants from entering surrounding water courses in the project vicinity by preventing pollutants from moving off-site.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with Section 7.2, Grading, Excavations, and Fills of the Municipal Code. Section 7.2 of the Municipal Code provides regulations to ensure that soil would not be stripped and removed from lands, creating hazards of subsidence and faulty drainage. It also ensures grading is regulated to control erosion and sedimentation to protect water quality of water courses and water bodies. For example, Section 7.2.305 of the Municipal Code would require an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which would minimize soil erosion and sedimentation from the project site and also provide control for runoff.46 Therefore, with adherence to these existing requirements, impacts from construction would not result in substantial soil erosion 45 City of Hercules. 2015. Hercules Safety Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/13723/637548003700130000. Accessed June 9, 2022. 46 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code – Title 7 Public Works, Chapter 2 Grading, Excavations and Fills. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules07/Hercules072.html#7-2. Accessed February 18, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 84 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx or loss of topsoil. Therefore, construction-related impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As described above, the California Department of Conservation has not evaluated the project site for landslide hazards. The Geotechnical Investigation notes there is a near vertical slope along the majority of the eastern border of the site. In order to minimize potential damage from landslides, the proposed project shall be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques in accordance with the 2019 CBC.

Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is generally related to the substantial overdraft of groundwater or petroleum reserves from underground reservoirs. The project site does not lie above an oil field or water production well based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA’s) review of the hydrogeologic data provided in the Environmental Data Resources Regulatory Database Report.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant effect related to subsidence.

As previously mentioned, the project site has a low to moderate susceptibility to liquefaction. In order to reduce or avoid impacts related to unstable soils, the Geotechnical Investigation includes earthwork recommendations. These recommendations included criteria for grading, excavation, and fill replacement that would prevent significant settlement of soils. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation are incorporated into the project construction and design plans. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soil would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded, based on field reconnaissance by a soil engineer, exploratory soil borings, and laboratory testing of soil samples, that the on-site soils are moderately and highly expansive. The moderately and highly expansive soil are prone to heave and shrink movements with changes in moisture content and must be carefully considered in the design and construction of foundations, drainage, hardscape, and pavements. The Geotechnical Investigation for the project site determined that a post-tensioned slab foundation is the most appropriate foundation system to reduce impacts related to expansive soil. Slab must be designed to tolerate the expansive clay criteria presented in the Geotechnical Investigation. These include but are not limited to maximum allowable bearing pressure recommendations, reduced lateral support and a deepened footing near foundations and biofiltration areas, proper backfill and compaction, and verification and approval by a Soil Engineer.

MM GEO-1 would require the project applicant to incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans, including the slab recommendations, which City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 85 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx would reduce potential impacts related to expansive soils. Impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The proposed project would connect to the existing sewer system operated by the City of Hercules and Pinole-Hercules JPA. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be used. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. The potential for fossil occurrence depends on the rock type exposed at the surface in a given area. According to the site-specific Paleontological Records Search (Appendix D), the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database search revealed four vertebrate localities in the Monterey Formation in Contra Costa County. The nearest vertebrate locality to the project site is about 3 miles to the northeast. Because the surface of the project site is disturbed and because of the distance from the nearest vertebrate locality, paleontological monitoring of construction was not recommended. However, to ensure that there are no direct or indirect impacts to any resources, MM GEO-2 requires a qualified paleontologist to provide the construction crew with an orientation prior to earth-disturbing activities, including a detailed plan of action in the event of an unanticipated discovery. With the implementation of MM GEO-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of preliminary grading permits, the project applicant shall incorporate all recommendations provided in the project-Geotechnical Investigation into project plans. The Geotechnical recommendations outlined on Page 9 through

Page 22 ends

earthwork recommendations for site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, surface and subsurface drainage, bio-filtration facilities, foundations, concrete flatwork, retaining walls, spread and pier footings, pavement areas, utility trenches, project review, and construction monitoring. Additionally, these include recommendations related to structural design, foundation design, foundation systems, slabs, moisture barriers, seismic design, walls, footing excavations, slabs and walkways, concrete design, corrosion, pavement design, as well as lot maintenance, and future plan reviews.

MM GEO-2 Prior to the commencement of earth-disturbing activities, a professional paleontologist shall provide the construction crew with an orientation on significant Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 86 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx fossils that could be encountered and the appropriate procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. If any vertebrate remains (i.e., bones, teeth, or unusually abundant and well-preserved invertebrates or plants) be unearthed, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery should be diverted at least 15 feet until a professional paleontologist assesses the find and, if deemed appropriate, salvages it in a timely manner. All recovered fossils shall be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), where they shall be properly curated and made accessible for future study.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 87 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHGs. The effect is analogous to the way a greenhouse retains heat. Prominent GHGs that naturally occur in the Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and ozone. 47 Anthropogenic
(human-caused) GHG emissions include releases of these GHGs plus release of human-made gases with high global warming potential (GWP) (ozone-depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs])
48 and aerosols, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Therefore, this section discusses the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative GHG impact.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant impact. Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary 47 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D.

Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller [eds.]). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Website: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed January 27, 2022. 48 U.S. Department of State. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Website: https://www.state.gov/key-topicsoffice-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundary-issues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 88 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx (short-term) construction activities such as demolition and grading, running of construction equipment engines, movement of on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, hauling materials to and from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker, vendor, and haul truck motor vehicle trips.

Long-term, operational GHG emissions would result from project-generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, off-site generation of electrical power over the life of the proposed project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, and the emissions associated with the hauling, and disposal of solid waste from the project site.

The 2017 BAAQMD Thresholds contain the following for thresholds for GHGs:

For land use development projects (including residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities), the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); or 4.6 metric tons CO2e/service population/year (residents + employees).

It should be noted that the BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance was established based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Because the proposed project would be constructed after 2020, the BAAQMD quantitative thresholds of significance listed above was adjusted to become “substantial progress” thresholds that were calculated based on the SB 32 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels (i.e., 60 percent of 1990 levels). The mass emission threshold of significance applied in this analysis is 660 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year (1,100 x 0.60 = 660). To determine significance, the proposed project’s GHG emissions are assessed against the projected 2030 bright line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year.

It should be noted that while the BAAQMD has recently updated their recommended GHG significance thresholds for land use projects,49 their staff has identified that the Notice of Preparation (NOP) issuance date, or the commencement of analysis if no NOP, defines an appropriate cut-off date for which thresholds to utilize for CEQA projects. As such, because this analysis was already well-underway at the time these new significance thresholds were adopted, the significance thresholds contained in the BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the industry standard of adjusting that significance threshold to demonstrate substantial progress toward the 2030 legislative reduction target were utilized in this analysis to determine project impact significance.

Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. Therefore, this section measures the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 89 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx environmental impact. The following is a discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions during both the construction and operation phases.

Short-term Construction Impacts
The proposed project would emit GHG emissions during construction from the off-road equipment, worker vehicles, and any hauling that may occur. The BAAQMD does not presently provide a construction GHG emission threshold but recommends that construction GHG emissions be quantified and disclosed. The BAAQMD also recommends that lead agencies (in this case, the City of Richmond) determine the level of significance of construction GHG emissions. Total GHG emissions generated throughout construction were combined and are presented in Table 10. In the absence of a construction emission threshold, construction GHG emissions are amortized over the expected lifetime of the proposed project (30 years) and added to the proposed project’s operational GHG emissions in Table 11. These total project emissions were analyzed against the BAAQMD’s bright line threshold, adjusted to demonstrate substantial progress toward the 2030 legislative reduction target. It should be noted that the existing land use’s operational emissions are not included above.

As such, the emissions estimates contained herein represent a conservative assessment of project impacts.

Table 10: Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase MT CO2e per year
Demolition 49
Site Preparation (Site-Wide) 12
Grading (Site-Wide) 34
Paving (Roadways and Foundations) 24
Building Construction (Model Homes) 10
Architectural Coating (Pavement and Model
Homes) 2
Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) 93
Architectural Coating (Pre-receptors) 12
Building Construction (Post-Receptors) 80
Architectural Coating (Post-Receptors) 14
Total Construction Emissions 331
Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years1 11
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Totals may not add up due to rounding. 1 Construction greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are amortized over the 30-year lifetime of the project.

Source: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 90 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Long-term Operational Impacts
The proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from mobile sources (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks), energy (e.g., on-site natural gas consumption and purchased electricity), water use and wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. All modeling parameters utilized in the Air Quality analysis are also utilized for this GHG analysis, including but not limited to trip generation rates, trip distances, building sizes and operations, energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. Please refer to Appendix A for modeling results and detailed calculations Operational GHG emissions by source are shown in Table 11. The proposed project was analyzed assuming full buildout in the year 2024. The estimated total annual project-generation emissions, including operational emissions and amortized construction emissions, were compared with the 2030 target threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year calculated from the BAAQMD’s bright line threshold to determine significance at project buildout in the year 2024.

Table 11: Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Year 2024 Total Emissions
(MT CO2e per year)
Area 4
Energy 107
Mobile (Vehicles) 282
Waste 24
Water 6
Amortized Construction Emissions 11
Total Project Emissions 434
Applicable Threshold (MT CO2e/year) 660
Does project exceed threshold? No
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
As shown in Table 11, the proposed project’s generation of approximately 434 MT CO2e per year would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions which would exceed significance thresholds.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact.

The following discusses project consistency with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, which include ARB’s Scoping Plan, Metropolitan Transportation City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 91 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2050, and City of Hercules’ General Plan.

ARB Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy for GHG emission reduction targets are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and the subsequent SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 required the ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes California's approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target. SB 32 then accelerated the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the most recent update to the ARB Scoping Plan, reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels as set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. It is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Transportation Sector
Passenger Vehicles
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the transportation sector in general include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program).50 The proposed project would include wiring and conduits capable of supporting EV charging consistent with Title 24 standards. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with State goals for reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles.

Energy/Commercial-Residential Sectors
Energy use generated by the project represents the second largest source of emissions after the transportation sector. New buildings under the proposed project would meet the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency standards. The proposed project would include rooftop photovoltaic electricity generation panel arrays compliant with the California Building Code. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goalsfor reducing residential energy consumption.

Other Sources
Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste disposal, which is associated with landfilling municipal solid waste. The amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere as a fraction of the total amount of methane generated from the decomposition of accumulated waste has gradually declined over time as more landfills install landfill gas collection and control systems and existing systems are 50 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs2015.htm. Accessed February 3, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 92 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx operated more efficiently as a result of the ARB’s Landfill Methane Control Measure.51 Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goals for the recycling and waste sector.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Plan Bay Area
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area 2050, local governments have identified planned development areas to focus growth. The proposed project site is within the planning area of the Hercules General Plan and consistent with applicable land use designations. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area, which include concentrating new investment in areas that would encourage job growth. In addition, the proposed project would be developed in an area with existing urban infrastructure, such as roads, potable water, and sanitary sewer lines. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050.

The project site is located approximately 3,400 feet west of SR-80 and there are existing sidewalks along the proposed project’s frontage on Skelly that connect to the nearest arterial road. Several bus stops are located within a walking distance of the site, including the San Pablo Avenue and John Street Stop (500 feet or 3-minute walking time to the project site) and San Pablo Avenue and Hercules Stop (2,600 feet or 13-minute walking time to the project site) operated by Western Contra Costa Transit Authority. As such, it is likely that some residents would travel to and from the project site using public transit. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the ABAG and MTC’s Plan Bay Area goals to reduce VMT and encourage development in planned development areas.

City of Hercules General Plan
The City of Hercules has not adopted a Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the City’s General Plan would be referenced herein as the local plan adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The City adopted its General Plan in 1998 and the City recently updated its Housing Element in 2015.52 In the Housing Element, future jobs and employed residents are estimated and it states that it is important to maintain jobs-and-housing balance with the benefit of improved air quality and reduced fuel consumption. The Housing Element mentions that the City’s works with the utility provider PG&E to offer a range of incentives to encourage energy conservation, including rebates for energy-efficient appliances and home improvements. The Housing Element also states its Goal 6.0: “Promote energy efficiency and conservation throughout Hercules” with the following policies:

Policy 6.1 Promote the use of Green Building techniques in residential development.

Policy 6.2 Ensure all new residential development complies with energy efficiency performance standards of the California Building Standards Code.

Policy 6.3 Utilize site planning techniques to allow passive energy efficiencies through solar access, landscaping and building orientation.
51 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Landfill Methane Regulation. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/landfill-methane-regulation/about. Accessed March 8, 2022. 52 City of Hercules. Elements of General Plan. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/general-plan. Accessed March 8, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 93 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Policy 6.4 Seek opportunities to educate the public about energy conservation.

Policy 6.5 Encourage energy conservation measures and solar systems in existing homes where feasible and cost-effective.

The goal and policies aforementioned are intended to improve energy efficiency. At the same time, they would also reduce the GHG emissions because energy consumption, such as heating and cooling of homes, generates GHG emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, which would further improve project structure energy efficiency, reduce water demand, and provide access for EV charging. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy conservation goals and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions in the City’s General Plan.

Senate Bill 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update addressing the Senate Bill (SB) 32 targets was adopted on December 14, 2017. Table 12 provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. As shown in Table 12, many of the measures are not applicable to the proposed project, and the proposed project is consistent with strategies that are applicable.

Table 12: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency SB 350: 50 Percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to
increase their renewable energy mix from 33
percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable. This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. The
proposed project would purchase electricity from PG&E
subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate.

SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected
to increase in stringency over time. The proposed
project would comply with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time
building permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable. This is a Statewide measure that cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead agency.

However, vehicles used by future residents at the
project site would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZeroEmission Vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV trucks and buses.

Not applicable. This measure is not applicable to the
proposed project; however, vehicles accessing the
project site would benefit from the increased
availability of cleaner technology and fuels. In addition, as stipulated by the 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 4, Section 4.106.4.1, new onefamily dwellings, such as the proposed project, would be required to implement the applicable provisions of
Title 24, Part 6, Section 4.106.4 of the 2019 California Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 94 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measure Project Consistency Building Code to support future electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE).

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target
is to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent
by increasing the value of goods and services
produced from the freight sector, relative to the
amount of carbon that it produces by 2030. This
would be achieved by deploying over 100,000
freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero
emission operation and maximize near-zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment powered
by renewable energy by 2030.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is residential in
nature and would not have any major freight vehicles
operational.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent. Consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 6,
Rule 3, no wood-burning devices are proposed as part
of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not include major sources of black
carbon.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
Sustainable Communities Strategy for reduction of
per capita VMT.

Not applicable. The proposed project does not include
the development of a Regional Transportation Plan.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement
manufacturers.

Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations, and,
therefore, this measure does not apply to the proposed
project. However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people and entities who use
the products and services produced by the regulated
industrial sources when increased cost of products or
services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other
agencies at the federal, State, and local levels,
stakeholders, and with the public, to develop
measures as outlined in the Scoping Plan Update
and the governor’s Executive Order B-30-15 to
reduce GHG emissions and to cultivate net carbon
sequestration potential for California’s natural and
working land.

Not applicable. The proposed project is in a built-up
urban area and would not be considered natural or
working lands.

Source of ARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update Reduction Measures: California Air Resource Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November. Website: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

Accessed March 8, 2022.

As shown in Table 12, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 95 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Summary
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would not conflict with the provisions of SB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any plans to reduce GHG emissions and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 96 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The information in this section is based in part on a Phase I ESA conducted by Brown and Caldwell on January 5, 2022, and is included as Appendix E of this Draft IS/MND. 53 53 Brown and Caldwell. January 5, 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 97 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. A recognized environmental condition (REC) is “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.”54 The Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs and did not recommend further assessment of the property; therefore, construction of the proposed project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the public.

Construction activities would require the routine use of substances such as solvents, paints, fuel, and other potentially hazardous substances. These materials are commonly used during construction activities and would be used in limited quantities. Heavy construction equipment such as dozers, excavators, and tractors would likely require the use of petroleum-based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which are considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. These activities are standard activities at most construction sites, and the risks associated with the proposed project would be similar to the risks associated with other similar construction sites. The handling, use, and storage of hazardous materials is regulated by numerous agencies, including the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Caltrans, California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), in addition to applicable local regulations. All construction projects must comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the United States Department of Transportation and implemented in California by Caltrans, as well as the applicable State Water Board NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. As part of the Construction General Permit requirements, preparation of a SWPPP would be required, which would include BMPs such as the use of straw bales to prevent the release of any hazardous materials during construction.

Substances that may be used during project operation include cleaning agents, building maintenance chemicals, and pesticides and herbicides used for landscaping and maintenance. The amount of materials required for these activities would not be large enough to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Although the proposed project would operate as single-family residences with no significant use of heavy chemicals or pollutants, the transport, use, and disposal of these operational substances is controlled and regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the federal Clean Air Act. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Compliance with the applicable local, State, and federal standards, policies, and regulations would help ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials does not create a significant hazard. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
54 Brown and Caldwell. January 5, 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 98 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. During project construction activities, there is always a limited risk of the accidental release of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oil, or fluids from construction equipment. However, use of these materials would be conducted in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances set forth by the EPA, State Water Board, DTSC, Cal/OSHA, Caltrans, RCRA, Contra Costa Environmental Health Department, and the RodeoHercules Fire Protection District. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• California Health and Safety Code Sections 25270.7, 25270.8, and 25507; • California Vehicle Code Section 23112.5;
• California Public Utilities Code Section 7673 (PUC General Orders #22-B, 161); • California Government Code Sections 51018 and 8670.25.5(a); • California Water Code Sections 13271 and 13272;
• California Labor Code Section 6409.1(b)10; and
• NPDES Construction General Permit requirements.

Compliance with the provisions of these regulations would help minimize the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment and that appropriate remediation measures are implemented in the event of an accidental release.

A described above, the Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs and did not recommend further assessment of the project site. However, due to the age of the on-site structures, asbestoscontaining materials (ACMs) or lead-based paints (LBPs) could be present. Because of the potential for ACMs and lead-based paints, the applicant would be required retain a qualified hazardous materials contractor to remove and dispose of ACMs and LBPs in accordance with federal and State regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. The La Casita Bilingue Montessori School is located within 0.25 mile of the project site. While construction of the proposed project could emit hazardous emissions, these emissions would be temporary and the project applicant is required to comply with all safe transport, handling, and disposal requirements and regulations. Operation of the proposed singlefamily homes would not result in the emission or handling of large quantities of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to the possibility of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of a school.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 99 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.55 No impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The closest airport to the project site is the Buchanan Field Airport, located approximately 12 miles east of the project site. The project site is outside of the area affected by federal aviation regulations and the airport influence area and is therefore not subject to the noise and safety regulations pursuant to the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan.56 Therefore, the proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within an airport influence area or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport; there would be no impact. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in Zone 5 in the City’s Emergency Evacuation Routes and would use San Pablo Avenue in case of an evacuation.57 In case of an emergency that requires an evacuation, residents at the proposed project would travel north on San Pablo Avenue to SR-4 and continue out of town by means of I-80 or eastbound SR-4. Construction of the proposed project would not block any the adjacent neighborhood from accessing San Pablo Avenue.58 Furthermore, as described in Section 2.17 Transportation, the proposed project would allow for adequate circulation such that emergency access would be feasible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located on a relatively flat site within an urbanized and residential area of the City that has not experienced wildfire. The topography of the project site 55 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Envirostor. 2021 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?page=1&cmd=search&business_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&c ounty=&status=ACT%2CBKLG%2CCOM&branch=&site_type=CSITES%2COPEN%2CFUDS%2CCLOSE&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=HAZ ARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST&reporttype=CORTESE&federal_superfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup= &school_cleanup=&operating=&post_closure=&non_operating=&corrective_action=&tiered_permit=&evaluation=&spec_prog=&n ational_priority_list=&senate=&congress=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type= &cleanup_type=&ocieerp=&hwmp=False&permitted=&pc_permitted=&inspections=&inspectionsother=&complaints=&censustract =&cesdecile=&school_district=&orderby=upper%28business%5Fname%29. Accessed February 16, 2022. 56 Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission. 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Website:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/851/Cover-Introduction-and-County-wide-Policies?bidId=. Accessed February 16, 2022. 57 City of Hercules. 2005. Emergency Evacuation Route Zone 5. December. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/402/636582802056930000. Accessed March 24, 2022. 58 City of Hercules. Emergency Evacuation Routes.https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/police/emergencypreparedness/emergency-evacuation-routes. Accessed February 16, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 100 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx is relatively flat with a gentle slope near the southeastern corner, and ranges between 9 feet above sea level at the northwestern boundary and 53 feet above sea level near the southeastern boundary.

The structures on the project site were previously damaged in a fire; however, the fire was limited to the on-site structures and was not related in any way to a wildfire. The City is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) in a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).59 The site is located in an area that is mostly surrounded by other residential development, which reduces wildfire risks.

Additionally, the proposed project would result in the removal of vegetation across the vacant site, further reducing the risk of wildfires. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
59 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2009. Contra Costa County: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA as Recommended by CAL FIRE. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2022.

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or 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
(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?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Water Quality
Water quality in the City is affected by a number of pollutants that are carried into surface and ground waters by runoff. New development could introduce point sources of pollution for any pollution source that would not discharge into an established sewer system. These sources would Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 102 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx require a NPDES permit. Development of these areas could also increase the load of nutrients, metals, oil, and grease carried in runoff from roadways to surface and ground waters.60 Groundwater
Groundwater underlies the City at relatively shallow depths. Throughout the lower valley, especially west of I-80, where the proposed project is located, the winter water table is typically less than 2–3 feet deep and declines to 5–6 feet during most summer months.61 Hydrology
The City is within three major drainage basins, all of which outfall into San Pablo Bay, and are thus subject to tidal influences. Pinole and Rodeo Creeks drain relatively small portions of the City. Pinole Creek is adjacent to the project site. Pinole Creek was recently improved by the Corps of Engineers and is presently operated and maintained by the Contra Costa County Flood Control District.62 Storm Drainage
Storm drainage is collected by a storm drainage system and transported to Refugio Creek and flows into San Pablo Bay. The City's Stormwater Management Plan contains BMPs that are implemented on a time frame as the City reaches physical buildout. The City seeks to implement storm drainage systems with high aesthetic and recreational value as well as adequate capacity for expected flood flows.63
Erosion
Erosion from runoff and storm waters occurs along unvegetated hillsides and slopes, drainage channels, and other areas of bare ground. Gullying also occurs within Hercules as a result of this type of erosion. Erosion affects water quality and wildlife habitats along with slope stability and damage to property.64
Flooding
Flooding is a recognized hazard in some areas of Hercules. Stormwater flooding of Refugio Valley occurs during periods of heavy rainfall and runoff, coincident with high tides affecting Refugio Creek.

A backwater effect is created that prevents effective flood water discharge to San Pablo Bay.65 Pinole Creek is in a Zone AE Flood Zone, meaning it is an area subject to inundation by a 1 percent annualchance flood event. 66 The project site is not in this flood zone.

Would the project:
60 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. The Open Space/Conservation Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12571/636777935669470000. Accessed February 17, 2022. 61 Ibid. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. Safety Element. Figure S-3 Floodprone Areas Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 17, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 103 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Upon construction of the proposed single-family homes, the impervious areas of the project site would increase to 130,920 square feet. The proposed project may create sources of polluted runoff due to car leaks and exhaust from cars circulating the project site. However, Parcel B would be a 16,957 square feet bioretention area located at the northwest corner of the project site. Any remaining stormwater would connect to existing City stormwater infrastructure and be transported to Refugio Creek before draining into San Pablo Bay. To address potential water contaminants, the proposed project is required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local water quality regulations.

Per General Plan Program 10a.2, for each proposed development project, runoff increase calculations for the parcel at full buildout shall be measured against estimates of existing runoff to ensure that no flooding would result.67
The proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with applicable federal and State requirements. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion during construction activity. The proposed drainage and conveyance system is designed in accordance applicable State and local laws and regulations in order to reduce peak runoff volume, prevent inundating downstream waterways, and reduce pollutant loads. These construction and operational features would ensure the proposed project would not violate water quality standards.

Per Section 7-2.304 of the Municipal Code, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be submitted to the City and approved by the City Engineer for development project.68 Per Section 5-8.050 of the Municipal Code, a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria of the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook must be submitted as part of every application for a development project.69
The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, including the installation of landscaping and a bioretention area, to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality 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? 67 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. The Open Space/Conservation Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12571/636777935669470000. Accessed February 17, 2022. 68 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 2. Grading, Excavation, and Fills. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules07/Hercules072.html. Accessed February 17, 2022. 69 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 8: Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules05/Hercules058.html. Accessed February 17, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 104 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Less than significant impact. Potable water is currently supplied to the City of Hercules by the EBMUD. EBMUD does not operate water wells in the vicinity of the project area that would deplete local groundwater.70 In addition, although the proposed project would increase impervious surface on-site, the proposed bioretention area would allow for treatment and percolation of water into the underlying soils, which would, in turn, contribute to groundwater recharge. Because the proposed project does not involve an increase in groundwater extraction, and would increase recharge, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of 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; Less than significant impact. Grading and site preparation for the proposed project would create new drainage patterns, including surface runoff being directed to the bioretention area and eventually to the City’s existing storm drainage system.

Per Section 7-2.304 of the Municipal Code, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be submitted to the City and approved by the City Engineer for development project.71 Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to NPDES requirements. Areas of 1 acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a SWPPP for the prevention of runoff during construction. Compliance with these policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. As described above, Pinole Creek, which is adjacent to the project site is in a Zone AE Flood Zone, meaning it is an area subject to inundation by a 1 percent annual-chance flood event.72 The project site is not within this flood zone.73 Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to NPDES requirements and areas of 1 acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a SWPPP for the prevention of runoff during construction. Therefore, compliance with these policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (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
70 East Bay Municipal Utility District. January 2022. East Bay Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 71 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 2. Grading, Excavation, and Fills. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules07/Hercules072.html. Accessed February 17, 2022. 72 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. Safety Element. Figure S-3 Flood Prone Areas Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 17, 2022. 73 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NHFL) Viewer. Website: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed February 17, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 105 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Less than significant impact. As described above, Per Section 5-8.050 of the Municipal Code, a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria of the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook must be submitted as part of every application for a development project.74
The proposed drainage and conveyance system is designed in accordance applicable State and local laws and regulations in order to reduce peak runoff volume, prevent inundating downstream waterways, and reduce pollutant loads. These construction and operational features would ensure the proposed project would not violate water quality standards.

Per Section 7-2.304 of the Municipal Code, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be submitted to the City and approved by the City Engineer for development project.75 Per Section 5-8.050 of the Municipal Code, a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria of the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook must be submitted as part of every application for a development project.76
The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, including the installation of landscaping and a bioretention area, to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions, and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. As described above, Pinole Creek, which is adjacent to the project site is in a Zone AE Flood Zone, meaning it is an area subject to inundation by a 1 percent annual-chance flood event.77 The project site does not overlap with this flood zone.78 Furthermore, the proposed project is subject to NPDES requirements. Areas of one acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a SWPPP for the prevention of runoff during construction. Therefore, compliance with these policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than significant impact. As described above, Pinole Creek, which is adjacent to the project site is in a Zone AE Flood Zone, meaning it is an area subject to inundation by a 1 percent annual-chance flood event.79 However, the project site does not overlap with this flood zone.80 According to the 74 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 8: Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules05/Hercules058.html. Accessed February 17, 2022. 75 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 2. Grading, Excavation, and Fills. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules07/Hercules072.html. Accessed February 17, 2022. 76 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Chapter 8: Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules05/Hercules058.html. Accessed February 17, 2022. 77 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. Safety Element. Figure S-3 Floodprone Areas Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 17, 2022. 78 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NHFL) Viewer. Website: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed February 17, 2022. 79 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. Safety Element. Figure S-3 Floodprone Areas Map. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/12569/636770158459630000. Accessed February 17, 2022. 80 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NHFL) Viewer. Website: https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed February 17, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 106 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx California Department of Conservation’s California Tsunami Maps and Data, the project site would not be at risk in the event of a tsunami.
81 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to State and regional requirements related to stormwater runoff. Required compliance with State and local regulations regarding stormwater and dewatering during construction and operation would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
81 California Department of Conservation. 2021. California Tsunami Maps and Data. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. Accessed February 17, 2022.

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project site is within an established urban and residential area. The proposed project would develop 40 residential lots on the approximately 7.44-acre project site.

As described in Section 1.3.1, Land Use and Zoning, the General Plan and Hercules Zoning Map designate the project site as Residential Single-Family Low Density (RS-L). The General Plan states this land use designation is intended to provide areas with suburban single-family subdivisions.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant impact. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The project site is in a developed urban and residential area. Surrounding land uses include residential neighborhoods to the north and east; a neighborhood park and Pinole Creek to the west; and railroad tracks, the Pinole Senior Center Building, and commercial businesses to the south.

Development of the proposed project would not disrupt the surrounding land uses or divide the physical arrangement of the established communities to the north, south, east, and west of the project site. The proposed project would have a similar use to adjacent land. Additionally, the proposed project would include an EVA road that would connect to Skelly and circle the project site; thereby improving connectivity and access in the community. Additional pedestrian access would be added to the site via internal sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks on Skelly and via a pedestrian trail to the south of the project site connecting Skelly to San Pablo Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would improve connectivity within the community, and impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 108 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx 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? Less than significant impact. As described in Section 1.3.1, Land Use and Zoning, the RS-L designation allows for 2 to 7 units per acre. The proposed project would construct 40 units on 7.44 acres, which is approximately 5.4 units per acre, compliant with the land use designation. The maximum allowable building height is 35 feet. The maximum height of each single-family home would be 26 feet and 9 inches, which is below the maximum allowable building height. The minimum lot size for this land use designation is 6,000 square feet. The proposed project’s lot sizes range from 3,983 to 6,880 square feet. The RS-L land use designation has a minimum required front setback of 20 feet, minimum rear setback of 15 feet, and minimum side setback of 5 feet. The proposed residential units would have front setbacks of at least 20 feet, rear setbacks of at least 27 feet, and minimum side setbacks of 5 feet.

The project applicant is requesting approval for a Planned Development Plan to deviate from the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and corner side yard setbacks requirements for selected lots.

According to Municipal Code Section 13.48, development design may deviate from the standards of a zoning district to the extent that the Planned Development Plan is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Currently, the Municipal Code Section 13.48 only allows zoning standard deviation up to 10 percent when processing a project through a Planned Development Plan. As such, the project applicant is also requesting a Zoning Amendment to change text in Section

13.48 to eliminate the limitations on the amount of a deviation allowed by a Planned Development Plan. With the approval of the Zoning Amendment and Planned Development Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning of the project site. As such, impacts are considered less than significant.

Noise Land Use Compatibility
For a discussion of the characteristics of noise and further information regarding the applicable noise regulatory framework, refer to the Noise impact discussion in Section 2.13 of this document.

Implementation of the proposed project could introduce new land uses to an existing ambient noise environment that could conflict with the City’s established noise land use compatibility guidelines.

Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in a conflict with the City’s adopted noise land use compatibility standards in relation to existing ambient noise levels.

The City has established Exterior Noise Exposure Land Use Compatibility Standards for new land use developments in Table 6 of the Noise Element of the General Plan. 82 The land use category in the
table that is applicable to the proposed project is Residential, Hotels and Motels. Under this designation, noise environments with ambient noise levels up to 60 A-weighted decibel (dBA) day/night noise level (Ldn) are considered “Normally Acceptable,” for new residential land use development. Noise environments with ambient noise levels from 60 dBA to 75 dBA Ldn are considered “Conditionally Acceptable” for new residential land use development; however, under this circumstance, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed 82 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. September 22. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/general-plan. Accessed March 4, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 109 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional constructions, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, would normally suffice. Noise environments with ambient noise levels of 75 dBA to 80 dBA Ldn are considered “Unacceptable” for new residential land use development. Policy 1 of the Noise Element also establishes maximum allowable interior and exterior noise exposure standards for residential land uses within the City. The maximum acceptable noise levels in residential areas is a 24-hour average noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. If the residential land use is near a railroad noise source, then the outdoor noise exposure criterion should be 70 dBA Ldn for future residential development.

Existing traffic noise levels along selected roadway segments in the project vicinity were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) in order to determine the daily average traffic noise levels on select roadway segments in the project’s immediate vicinity. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the TIA prepared for the project by TJKM.
83 The traffic volumes described in Table 13 correspond to the existing without project conditions traffic scenario as described in the traffic study prepared for the project. The model inputs and outputs—including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA Ldn noise contour distances— are provided in Appendix F. A summary of the modeling results is shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Existing Traffic Noise Model Results Summary
Roadway Segment
Approximate
ADT
Centerline to
70 Ldn
(feet)
Centerline to
65 Ldn (feet)
Centerline to
60 Ldn (feet)
CNEL (dBA) 50
feet from
Centerline of
Outermost
Lane
Skelly–South of Hercules Avenue 290 < 50 < 50 < 50 44.9 Hercules Avenue–Skelly to San Pablo
Avenue 6,000 < 50 < 50 < 50 57.0
San Pablo Avenue–west of Hercules
Avenue 21,200 58 116 246 68.2
Notes:

ADT = Average Daily Traffic
1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst-case of having a direct line of site on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) 2022.

The modeling results in Table 12, above, show that traffic noise levels along Skelly and Hercules Avenue average approximately 45 dBA and 57 dBA Ldn, respectively, as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. These traffic noise levels are within the City’s normally “Normally Acceptable” standards for new residential land use development.

Existing traffic noise levels along San Pablo Avenue average approximately 68 dBA Ldn, as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. The closest proposed residence on the project site would be located over 360 feet from the centerline of San Pablo Avenue. At this distance, 83 TJKM. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report, 215 Skelly Residential Development. February 28.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 110 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx traffic noise levels from San Pablo Avenue would attenuate to below 55 dBA Ldn. These traffic noise levels are within the City’s normally “Normally Acceptable” standards for new residential land use development.

Therefore, traffic noise impacts to the proposed project would not exceed the City’s land use compatibility noise standards for the proposed single-family residential land uses.

However, the project site is also located adjacent to an existing BNSF rail line. According to the latest crossing inventory data,84 this rail line experiences an average of 12 daily train passings. To document existing ambient noise levels, including noise from railroad activity as well as stationary noise sources in the project vicinity, a long-term ambient noise measurement was conducted. The long-term 24-hour noise measurement was taken on March 16 to March 17, 2022, at the southeastern boundary of project site, approximately 50 feet from the railroad tracks. As noted by the noise technician, the dominant noise source at this location was railroad activity. Noise from the senior center facility south of the project site was also audible. The resulting measurement showed that the daytime average noise level was 57.5 dBA the equivalent sound level (Leq) and the nighttime average noise level was 52.4 dBA Leq, with a 24-hour average noise level of 60.6 dBA Ldn. The noise monitoring data sheets are provided in Appendix F.

These documented ambient noise levels meet the City’s exterior noise standard of 70 dBA Ldn for new residential land use development located near railroad noise sources. However, it should be noted that the closest proposed residence on the project site would be located over 130 feet from the centerline of the rail line. At this distance, (and conservatively assuming that the measured noise levels are predominantly from railroad noise sources) noise levels from railroad activity would attenuate to below 53 dBA Ldn. These ambient noise levels are within the City’s “Normally Acceptable” standards for new residential land use development.

These documented ambient noise levels, as measured at the nearest proposed residential units, that include train noise and stationary source noise levels, are within the City’s “Normally Acceptable” range of below 60 dBA Ldn for new residential land use developments, and no additional mitigation would be required. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a conflict with the City’s adopted land use compatibility for community noise environments standards, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
84 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2022. USDOT Crossing Inventory Form.

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
There are four classifications of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) to classify existing or potential mineral resource sites within areas of the State and they are described as follows:
• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that there is little likelihood exists for their presence. This zone shall be applied where the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is nil or slight.
• MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that there is a high likelihood for their presence exists. This zone shall be applied to known mineral deposits or where the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral deposits is high.
• MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
• MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

According to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, the City contains areas designated with MRZ-1, MRZ-3, and MRZ-4.85 There are no areas designated as MRZ-2 and there are no significant mineral deposit areas within the City. MRZ-3 zones have been mapped for the hills to the north and south of Highway 4 east of Highway 80 and the high area north of John Muir Parkway to the west of Highway 80.86
85 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan – Open Space and Conservation Element. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=12571. Accessed February 25, 2022. 86 Ibid.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 112 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx 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?
No impact. The State Board of Mining and Geology have adopted regulations to protect lands classified as MRZ-2 (lands where information indicates that significant stone, sand, and/or gravel deposits are present, or where a high likelihood of their presence exist). There are no areas in the City that are designated as MRZ-2 identified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology for the City. However, the City does contain areas designated as MRZ-3. The Hercules General Plan identifies that MRZ-3 zones have been mapped for the hills to the north and south of Highway 4 east of Highway 80 and the high area north of John Muir Parkway to the west of Highway 80. The project site is not located within this area. No impact would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The project area does not support any mineral extraction activities and there are no known mineral deposits within the City. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
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?
Environmental Evaluation
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes physiological harm or interferes with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Sound is produced by the vibration of sound pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and are described in terms of decibels.

The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit, which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard reference level. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Only audible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10-dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level. dBA approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies that are audible to the human ear.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 114 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Noise Descriptors
There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound, including during sensitive times of the day and night. The predominant rating scales in the State of California include the Leq, the CNEL, and the day-night average sound level (Ldn) all of which are based on dBA. The Leq is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. The CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). These additions are made to the sound levels at these times because there is a decrease in the ambient noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours, which creates an increased sensitivity to sounds. For this reason, sound is perceived to be louder in the evening and nighttime hours as compared with daytime hours and is weighted accordingly. Many cities rely on the CNEL noise standard to assess transportationrelated impacts on noise-sensitive land uses. The Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn measurements are typically within 1 dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable.

Existing Noise Environment
To document existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, a long-term ambient noise measurement was conducted. The long-term 24-hour noise measurement was taken on March 16, to March 17, 2022, at the southeastern boundary of project site, approximately 50 feet from the BNSF railroad tracks. As noted by the noise technician, the dominant noise source at this location was railroad activity. Noise from the senior center facility south of the project site was also audible.

The resulting measurement showed that the daytime average noise level was 57.5 dBA Leq and the nighttime average noise level was 52.4 dBA Leq, with a 24-hour average noise level of 60.6 dBA Ldn.

The noise monitoring data sheets are provided in Appendix F.

Regulatory Framework
The project site is located within the City of Hercules in Contra Costa County. The City of Hercules addresses noise in the Public Safety and Noise Element of its General Plan and in its Municipal Code.87,88
City of Hercules General Plan
The City’s General Plan establishes guidelines and policies that address noise. The Noise Element establishes land use compatibility standards for new land development projects, as shown in Table 14:
87 City of Hercules. 1998. Hercules General Plan. September 22. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/planning/general-plan. Accessed March 4, 2022. 88 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. July 27. Website: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules. Accessed March 4, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 115 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Table 14: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments in the City of Hercules
Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Exposure (dBA CNEL or Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential, Hotels, and Motels
Outdoor Sports and
Recreation, Neighborhood
Parks and Playgrounds
Schools, Libraries, Museums,
Hospitals, Personal Care,
Meeting Halls, Churches
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial, and Professional
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, and Agriculture
Key:

Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal convention construction, without any special insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features are included in the design to mitigate noise to normally acceptable levels.

Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies.

Source: City of Hercules General Plan 1998.

Policy 1 of the Noise Element also establishes maximum allowable interior and exterior noise exposure standards for residential land uses within the City. The maximum acceptable noise levels in residential areas is a 24-hour average noise level of 60 dBA Ldn. If the residential land use is near a railroad noise source, then the outdoor noise exposure criterion should be 70 dBA Ldn for future residential development.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 116 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Long-term noise impacts generated by traffic from new projects are considered significant if: (1) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater and the future noise level is less than 60 dBA Ldn; or (2) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater and the future noise level is 60 dBA Ldn or greater.

Noise levels from stationary sources associated with new projects are considered significant if they exceed the 50 dBA Leq or 70 dBA Lmax, during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), or 45 dBA Leq or 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.).

According to Policy 6 of the Noise Element, the City requires implementation of the following measures to ensure that the level of noise generated by construction would be reduced at noisesensitive land uses:
• For construction near noise-sensitive areas, as determined by the Community and Business Development Department, require that noisy construction activities (including truck traffic) be scheduled for periods, according to construction permit to limit impact on adjacent residents or other sensitive receptors.
• Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise impacts and accommodates particularly noise-sensitive periods for nearby land uses (e.g., for schools, churches, etc.)
• Where feasible, require that holes for driven piles be pre-drilled to reduce the level and duration of noise impacts.
• Where feasible, construct temporary solid noise barriers between source and sensitive receptor(s) to reduce off-site propagation of construction noise. This measure could reduce construction noise by up to 5 decibels.
• Require internal combustion engines used for construction purposes to be equipped with a properly operating muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. Also, require impact tools to be shielded per manufacturer’s specifications.

Hercules Municipal Code
The City of Hercules adopted a Zoning Ordinance with applicable noise standards in Section

13.31.300(11): Noise. Many of the ordinances are duplicative of the policies contained in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan. However, the following additional regulation would also apply to the proposed project.

Where noise levels exceed community noise standards for a proposed land use, one or more of the following techniques may be required to reduce the noise to an acceptable level:

1. Proper site planning to reduce noise impacts should be investigated for a project. By taking advantage of the natural shape and contours of the site, it is often possible to arrange the buildings and other uses in a manner which would reduce and possibly eliminate noise impact. Site planning techniques include:
a. Increasing the distance between the noise sources and the receiver.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 117 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx b. Placing non noise-sensitive structures such as parking lots, maintenance facilities and utility areas between the source and the receiver.
c. Using non noise-sensitive structures such as garages to shield noise-sensitive areas. d. Orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source.

2. Architectural Layout: In many cases, noise reduction requirements can be met by giving attention to layout of noise-sensitive spaces. Bedrooms, for example, would be considerably quieter if placed on the side of the house facing away from the freeway. Similarly, balconies facing freeways should be avoided. Quiet outdoor spaces can be provided next to a noisy highway by creating a U-shaped development which faces away from the highway.

3. Noise Barriers: To be effective, a noise barrier must be massive enough to prevent significant noise transmission through it and high enough to shield the receiver from the noise source.

The minimum acceptable surface weight for a noise barrier is 4 pounds per square foot (equivalent to ¾-inch plywood), and the barrier must be carefully constructed so that there are no cracks or openings. To be effective, a barrier must interrupt the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver.
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?
Short-term Construction Impacts
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. A significant impact could occur if construction activities result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels outside of the City’s permissible hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or if construction activities exceed the maximum sound levels established by the City’s General Plan Noise Element action policies listed above.

Construction-related Traffic Noise
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. One type of short-term noise impacts that could occur during project construction would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the project site.

The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to the project site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Because workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle-generated noise on these local roadways. Typically, a doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which, as discussed in the Characteristics of Noise section above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. Project-related construction trips would not be expected to double the hourly traffic volumes along any roadway Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 118 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx segment in the project vicinity. For this reason, short-term intermittent noise from construction trips would be minor when averaged over a longer time period and would not result in a perceptible increase in hourly or daily average traffic noise levels in the project vicinity. Therefore, short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with the transportation of workers and equipment to the project site would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment Operational Noise
The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during construction on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Impact equipment, such as impact pile drivers, are not expected to be used during construction of this project.

The loudest phase of construction is typically the site preparation and grading phase, as that is when the loudest pieces of heavy construction equipment would operate. For example, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment.

Each bulldozer would also generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

A conservative but reasonable assumption is that this equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least a 1-hour period in the vicinity of the closest existing residential receptors but would move linearly over the project site as they perform their earth moving operations, spending a relatively short amount of time adjacent to any one receptor. A characteristic of sound is that each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases a sound level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. The acoustical center reference is used because construction equipment must operate at some distance from one another on a project site and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from the sources (acoustic center) would be the worst-case maximum noise level. These operations would be expected to result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. These reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would only occur during the site preparation phase of development.

The closest sensitive-noise receptor to the project site is the single-family residential land use located west of the project site at the south end of the Rosti cul-de-sac. This closest residence would be located approximately 65 feet from the nearest acoustic center of the construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would be operating. At this distance, these residential land uses may be exposed to noise levels ranging up to approximately 83 dBA maximum noise/sound City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 119 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx level (Lmax), with a relative worst-case hourly average of 79 equivalent sound level (Leq) when site preparation construction activities occur at the portion of the project site nearest these homes.

Although there could be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential causing an intermittent noise nuisance, the effect of construction activities on longer-term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels would be small but could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Implementation of General Plan Policy 6 would help reduce potential construction noise impacts. As recommended in this policy, construction activities should comply with restricted hours of operation which would reduce potential impacts that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, restricting construction activities to daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, as well as implementing the best management noise reduction techniques and practices outlined in MM NOI-1, would ensure that construction noise would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in annoyance or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, with implementation of MM NOI-1, temporary construction noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Operational/Stationary Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if operational noise levels associated with the proposed project’s stationary noise sources would exceed the City’s maximum noise limits at any of the designated surrounding land uses. According to General Plan Policy 3, noise levels from stationary sources associated with new projects are considered significant if they exceed the 50 dBA Leq or 70 dBA Lmax during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) or 45 dBA Leq or 65 dBA Lmax during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.).

The proposed project would include new stationary noise sources such as mechanical ventilation equipment. Potential noise impacts from these sources are analyzed below.

Mechanical Equipment Operations
At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to proposed mechanical ventilation systems for the project. Therefore, a reference noise level for typical singlefamily mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from these types of mechanical ventilation equipment range from 60 dBA to 70 dBA Leq as measured at approximately 3 feet from the operating unit.

Proposed mechanical ventilation systems could be located as close as approximately 40 feet from the nearest off-site receptors. In addition, the proposed project would include solid fencing along adjacent residential land uses which would provide additional shielding. At this distance and with minimal shielding reduction from proposed fencing, noise generated by proposed mechanical ventilation equipment would attenuate to below 45 dBA Leq, as measured at the nearest off-site residential receptor. These noise levels would not exceed the City’s applicable noise performance standards.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 120 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Therefore, proposed mechanical ventilation system operational noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels in excess of established standards. The impact of mechanical ventilation equipment operational noise levels on sensitive off-site receptors would be less than significant.

Operational/Mobile Source Noise Impacts
Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels compared with traffic noise levels existing without the project. According to the City’s adopted policies of the General Plan, noise level increase resulting from project-related traffic would be a significant impact if:
(1) Traffic noise levels would increase by 5 dBA Ldn or greater and the future noise level is less than 60 dBA Ldn;
(2) Or traffic noise levels would increase by 3 dBA Ldn or greater and the future noise level is 60 dBA Ldn or greater.

The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was used to evaluate existing and future traffic noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The daily traffic volumes were obtained from the TIA prepared for the project by TJKM. 89 The resultant noise levels were weighed
and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the Ldn values. The traffic noise modeling input and output files are included in Appendix F of this document. Table 15 shows a summary of the traffic noise levels for Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

Table 15: Traffic Noise Model Results Summary
Roadway Segment
Ldn (dBA) 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Lane
Existing
(dBA) Ldn
Existing Plus
Project
(dBA) Ldn
Increase
Over
Existing
(dBA)
Cumulative
(dBA) Ldn
Cumulative
Plus Project
(dBA) Ldn
Increase
Over
Cumulative
(dBA)
Skelly–South of Hercules
Avenue 44.9 47.9 3.0 45.5 48.8 3.3
Hercules Avenue–Skelly to San
Pablo Avenue 57.0 57.3 0.3 57.7 57.9 0.2
San Pablo Avenue–west of
Hercules Avenue 68.2 68.2 0.0 68.8 68.8 0.0
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibel
Ldn = day/night average sound level 1 Modeling results do not take into account mitigating features such as topography, vegetative screening, fencing, building design, or structure screening. Rather it assumes a worst-case of having a direct line-of-sight on flat terrain.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS). 2022.
89 TJKM. 2022. Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report, 215 Skelly Residential Development. February 28.

As shown in Table 17, all other modeled roadway segments would experience less than a 1 dBA increase in traffic noise levels compared to traffic noise levels existing without the project.

Therefore, project-related traffic would not result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels and the impact would be less than significant.

Therefore, project traffic would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, and project-related traffic noise impacts on off-site receptors would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. The City of Hercules does not establish a groundborne vibration threshold, so for purposes of this analysis Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards are used. For determining constructionrelated vibration impacts, the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria are utilized. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact assessment in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, dated September 2018.

Groundborne noise is an effect of groundborne vibration and only exists indoors, since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves. In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

In extreme cases, excessive groundborne vibration has the potential to cause structural damage to buildings. Common sources of groundborne vibration include construction activities such as blasting, pile driving and operating heavy earthmoving equipment. However, construction vibration impacts on building structures are generally assessed in terms of peak particle velocity (PPV). For purposes of this analysis, project-related impacts are expressed in terms of PPV.

Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for the type of structure.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 122 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the small vibratory rollers that are anticipated to be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The nearest off-site receptor to the project site is the single-family residence located west of the project site. The façade of this building would be located approximately 45 feet from the nearest construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.04 PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 PPV for buildings of non-engineered timber and masonry.

Therefore, project construction activities would not generate groundborne vibration levels in excess of the FTA’s criteria, and impacts would be considered less than significant as measured at the nearest receiving structures in the project vicinity. Project construction-related groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources that would generate groundborne vibration levels that could be noticeable without instruments at the lot line of the project site. Therefore, project operations would not generate permanent excessive groundborne vibration levels or expose proposed uses to excessive groundborne vibration levels, and operational groundborne vibration 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?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest public airport to the project site is the Buchanan Field Airport in Contra Costa County, located approximately 12.4 miles east of the project site. The next closest airport to the project site is the San Rafael Field Airport, located approximately 17 miles west of the project site. Because of the distance from these airports and the orientation of the airport runways, the project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contours. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following best management measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction. In addition, all of the following measures shall be printed on the project construction documents prior to issuance of building permits:

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 123 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx • The construction contractor shall limit noise producing construction activities, including deliveries and equipment warmup, to the hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No noise producing construction activity shall be permitted on Sundays.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such market available technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable, and a minimum of 50 feet, from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest residential land uses. • Where a solid fence or wall is not already present along the property line of an adjoining residential land use, the construction contractor shall construct temporary, minimum 6-foot-high, solid noise barrier/fence with a minimum surface weight of 4 pounds per square foot, which would be effective to reduce construction noise by up to 5 A-weighted decibel (dBA). • The construction contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and establish reasonable measures necessary to correct the problem. The construction contractor shall visibly post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 124 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the California Department of Finance (CDF), the City of Hercules’ estimated population as of January 2021 was approximately 25,864. This was a 1.5 percent increase from January 2020s population of 25,494.90
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. According to the CDF, the average persons per household in the City of Hercules is 3.05. Given that the proposed project would construct 40 units, it can be assumed that the proposed project would generate 122 new residents.
91 This is less than 1 percent of an increase
of the City’s total population in 2021. Additionally, as stated in the City’s Housing Element for 2015- 2023, the City’s population is projected to increase to approximately 31,300 by 2025 and to 39,500 by 2040.
92 The proposed project is also consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation of the project site. Therefore, the population growth of 122 new residents is considered planned growth. The proposed project would also contribute 40 residential units to the future housing need for the 6th Cycle planning period. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, either through new housing or proposing new businesses or indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
90 California Department of Finance (CDF). 2021. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State – January 1, 2020 and 2021. Website: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-1/. Accessed March 1, 2022. 91 3.05 persons per residential unit * 40 residential units = 122 persons. 92 City of Hercules. 2015. City of Hercules, Housing Element, 2015-2023. April.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 126 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Fire protection services for the City are provided by the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District (Fire District), which has two fire stations serving the City. Law enforcement services are provided by the Hercules Police Department (HPD).

The project site is within the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). The nearest schools to the project site include:
• Collins Elementary School located approximately 0.45 mile south of the site • Pinole Middle School located approximately 0.9 mile west of the site • Pinole Valley High School located approximately 1 mile south of the site The nearest park facilities within 1 mile of the project site include Fernandez Park, Duck Pond Park, Bayfront Park, and Refugio Valley Park. Library services would be provided by the Contra Costa County Library system.

The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with Skelly Residential Project public service providers. Correspondence consisted of an inquiry sent via email on February 24, 2022. Responses were provided to FCS between March 15, 2022, and March 29, 2022, and are included as Appendix G of this document.

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

The City has adopted the California Fire Code (Municipal Code Chapter 15) with modifications for local conditions. The proposed project would comply with the adopted Fire Code and policies related to fire protection. Although the proposed project may increase the need for fire protection service at the project site with an increase in up to 122 new residents, the Fire District could adequately serve and provide fire protection services as the nearest station is approximately 6 minutes away.

On February 24, 2022, FCS sent a letter to the Fire District, inquiring about the department’s ability to serve the proposed project. On March 15, 2022, a reply was received from Fire District, stating that they anticipate being able to accommodate the demand of the proposed project as part of the existing facilities, pending their design review of the proposed project. Furthermore, they stated that the proposed project would be required to pay a residential development fee for major subdivisions, as detailed in the Fire District’s Fee schedule.93
Additionally, General Plan policies ensure that the City regularly reviews HPD staffing levels to ensure the availability of adequate fire manpower and service facilities. General Plan policies would prevent future growth that exceeds the community capability to provide fire service. As a result, impacts would be considered less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. HPD headquarters are located at 111 Civic Drive, approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the project site and an approximately five-minute drive. The proposed project would result in an increase in the City’s population and therefore could increase demand for police services. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to General Plan policies to further reduce potential impacts on police protection services.

On February 24, 2022, FCS sent a letter to the HPD, inquiring about the department’s ability to serve the proposed project. On March 15, 2022, we received a reply from HPD Chief of Police, stating that the proposed project on its own does not create a need for new or expanded facilities. The HPD would also review project design to ensure it incorporates appropriate safety features to minimize criminal activity.
93 Rodeo-Hercules Fire District. 2017. Engineering/Plan Review – Fee Schedule. Website: https://www.rhfd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/Engineering-and-Plan-Review.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 128 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx General Plan policies ensure that the City regularly reviews HPD staffing levels to ensure the availability of adequate police manpower and service facilities. General Plan policies would prevent future growth that exceeds the community capability to provide police services. Additionally, all future developments are required to pay police development impact fees pursuant to Sections 10-

18.403 of the Municipal Code prior to the issuance of building permits. Implementation of these policies would ensure that adequate capital improvements are made to accommodate the increased demand for police protection services. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. On February 24, 2022, FCS sent a letter to the WCCUSD, inquiring about its ability to serve the proposed project. On March 29, 2022, a response was received from the WCCUSD. The responder stated that the current K-12 enrollment in the School District is 25,992 students, whereas the K-12 district-wide capacity is 29,492 students. The schools expected to serve the project site are Ohlone Elementary School, which has 102 percent utilization, Hercules Middle School, which has 111 percent utilization, and Hercules High School, which has 73 percent utilization.

The responder identified that it would be challenging for Ohlone Elementary School and Hercules Middle School to accommodate additional students, given that they are already beyond 100 percent utilization. However, new residential construction would have a school impact fee of $4.08 per square foot. Furthermore, the WCCUSD is embarking on a student housing study to address the need to balance enrollment, which is a Citywide issue. Potential impacts resulting from the proposed project would be reduced through the payment of development impact fees.94 With the payment of development impact fees, impacts would be less than significant. d) Parks?
Less than significant impact. As discussed in Section 2.16, Recreation, similar to all new development projects in the City, the project applicant would be required to dedicate land or pay fees, pursuant to Section 10-18.203 of the Hercules Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of building permits. Thus, any resulting increase in the need for additional facilities would be offset by the required payment of these development fees. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in 122 new residents to the City, which would increase the demand on other public facilities such as libraries. Library services would be provided by the Contra Costa County Library system. The nearest library to the project site is Hercules Library located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site.

Additionally, as described above, the proposed project is consistent with its RS-L land use designation and the population increase of 122 persons is considered planned growth per the General Plan Housing Element. Therefore, it can be assumed that any expansion of library and other 94 City of Hercules. 2021. Hercules Municipal Code. Website:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Hercules/#!/Hercules10/Hercules1018.html. Accessed March 8, 2022.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 130 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.16 Recreation
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?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City has one community park, the 55-acre Refugio Valley Park, and approximately nine neighborhood parks throughout the city limits.95 The City also operates the Hercules Swim Center and Hercules Senior Center.

According to the General Plan, the Open Space/Conservation element contain the following minimum standards for parks: 3.25 acres of community parks and 1.75 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents.96
The closest recreational facilities to the proposed project include the following:
• Fernandez Park is located approximately 100 feet southwest of the site and is within the City of Pinole’s city limits
• Bayfront Park is located approximately 0.39-mile northwest of the site • Duck Pond Park is located approximately 0.4-mile northeast of the site • Refugio Valley Park is located approximately 0.98-mile east of the site 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 impact. The proposed project would result in 122 new residents to the City, which would increase the demand on existing neighborhood parks. The proposed project would preserve 20,858 square feet of open space in the southeast corner of the project site. Pinole Creek 95 City of Hercules. 2022. Parks. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/parks-recreation/parks. Accessed March 1, 2022. 96 City of Hercules. 2015. Open Space Conservation Plan Element. April 14.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 131 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Trail is located along the western boundary of the project site. Although, the proposed project would not develop additional parks on-site, similar to all new development projects in the City, the project applicant would be required to dedicate land or pay fees, pursuant to Section 10-18.203 of the Hercules Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of building permits. Thus, any resulting increase in the need for additional facilities would be offset by the required payment of these development fees.97 With payment of the required fees or dedication of land, 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? No impact. As discussed above, the project does not propose the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. The proposed project would result in 122 new residents, which is anticipated in the City’s long-term planning documents, as discussed above. The closest park to the project site is Fernandez Park, located approximately 100 feet west of the site and would most likely serve the new residents. As described above, the proposed project would be subject to pay in lieu fees to the City for park dedication. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with such facilities. Thus, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
97 City of Hercules. 2021. Development Impact Fees. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/finance/impact-fees.

Accessed March 3, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 132 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The following analysis is based in part on the TIA dated February 28, 2022, prepared by TJKM, which is included as Appendix H.

Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018 to implement SB 743. Guideline 15064.3, which describes criteria for evaluating a project's transportation impacts, provides that VMT is generally "the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts," and that except for roadway capacity projects, a project's effect on traffic delays "shall not constitute a significant environmental impact." These provisions went into effect July 1, 2020. While Guideline 15064.3 governs a lead agency's assessment of traffic impacts under CEQA, it does not preclude a discussion of Level of Service (LOS) for informational purposes or other traffic analysis based on general plan or zoning standards, or on other agency policies.

Therefore, findings from the TIA are provided in this report in order to evaluate traffic impacts in support of General Plan consistency.

The City of Hercules General Plan has established performance benchmarks for signalized intersections and roadway segments within its jurisdiction. The City’s policy is to maintain LOS D as the desired level of service on intersections along all Basic Routes, which includes all arterials, collectors, and local roads that are not Regional Routes. There is no specified criteria for determining significant impacts to unsignalized intersections. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that an unsignalized intersection experiences a significant inconsistency if the LOS falls below LOS D, and the intersection meets the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Peak Hour Signal Warrant during the same peak hour.

In the City of Hercules, Skelly is a two-lane, east–west to north–south meandering street with a posted speed of 25 miles per hour (mph), which changes designation at Hercules Avenue. North of Hercules Avenue, Skelly becomes “Zeus,” a local street that provides access to the Olympic Hills Homeowner's Association (HOA). South of Hercules Avenue, Skelly is a local street. On-street parking is permitted south of Hercules Avenue.

Hercules Avenue is a four-lane, north–south collector with a posted speed of 25 mph. Hercules Avenue extends from O’Neill Circle in the north to Village Parkway in the south. Sidewalks are provided on both sides, and on-street parking is generally permitted north of San Pablo Avenue.

San Pablo Avenue is the primary transit spine of the region. It travels through all of the West Contra Costa County cities, and it is the primary reliever route to I-80 during periods of severe freeway congestion. San Pablo Avenue is a four-lane major arterial that runs generally east–west in the immediate project vicinity with a posted speed limit of 25-40 mph. On-street parking is prohibited, and intermittent sidewalks are provided along particular sections of the corridor. This roadway is also designated as a Route of Regional Significance by the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA).

I-80 is the primary interregional commute corridor through West Contra Costa County and has major regional significance to the Bay Area. I-80 is an 8- to 12-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 mph. The north–south freeway connects Hercules with nearby cities, such as Richmond and Vallejo, and regional destinations, such as San Francisco and Sacramento. It also provides access to the greater freeway network with direct connections to I-580, I-680, I-780, SR-4, SR-29, and SR-37.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant impact.

General Plan Standards and CCTA CMP
The TIA analyzed project traffic conditions in the Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Projects scenarios to determine the possible adverse effects the proposed project may have on the transportation facilities. To estimate traffic for Existing Plus Project conditions, the net project trips generated by the proposed project were added to background traffic volumes at each intersection movement. TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation (11th Edition). TJKM used Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 134 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx published trip rates for the ITE land use Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) for this project. The proposed project is expected to generate 377 total daily trips, including 28 net new a.m. peak hour trips (7 in, 21 out) and 38 net new p.m. peak hour trips (24 in, 14 out).

Under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Projects scenarios, both of the study intersections (Hercules Avenue/Skelly, and Hercules Avenue/San Pablo Avenue) would continue to operate within applicable jurisdictional standards during the a.m. peak hour, and both study intersections operate acceptably in the p.m. peak hour. The project would be consistent with level of service standards set forth under the Hercules General Plan and CCTA Congestion Management Program.

Vehicle Access
Primary access to the project site would be provided by a direct connection to Skelly at the location of the existing driveway. Vehicle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby roadways.

Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access would be via internal sidewalks connecting to existing sidewalks on Skelly, and via a pedestrian trail to the south of the project site connecting Skelly to San Pablo Avenue. There is one crosswalk at the intersection of Hercules Avenue and Skelly, and there are 4-way signalized crosswalks at the intersection of Hercules Avenue and San Pablo Avenue. Existing pedestrian facilities provide continuous paths to nearby bus stops on San Pablo Avenue and to nearby shopping centers to the southwest of the project site, primarily via trail access.

Existing sidewalk facilities on San Pablo Avenue to the southwest of the project site terminate between the two pedestrian trail outlets to San Pablo Avenue. This disruption separates pedestrians from nearby shopping centers west of Pinole Creek when traveling along San Pablo Avenue and may pose accessibility challenges due to the slope of the trail at some points. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans, or programs related to pedestrian facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of pedestrian facilities. The proposed project would not result in any such conflicts. Pedestrian access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Access
There are existing Class II bike lanes provided on San Pablo Avenue east of Hercules Avenue; an extension of the Class II bike lane is proposed in the Hercules 2018 General Plan Circulation Element.

A multiuse trail is present along Pinole Creek to the west of the project site. An impact to bicyclists occurs if the proposed project disrupts existing bicycle facilities or conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. A significant impact occurs if the proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of bicycle facilities. The proposed project would not result in any such conflicts. Bicycle access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby bicycle facilities.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 135 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Transit
A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities or is expected to generate additional transit trips and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops. The project site is adequately served by the transit service. Transit stops on San Pablo Avenue are within a 0.5 mile walk from the project site. Spread among multiple bus routes, the existing transit service can accommodate the proposed demand. Therefore, transit access to the project site is considered adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network On-site Circulation
The street connecting all homes forms a loop, with westward extension in line with the access point from Skelly providing garage access to four homes. The street is 34–45 feet wide throughout, including sidewalks and on-street parking spaces. There is adequate space for vehicles to maneuver into and out of parking spaces and garages. The proposed project would also provide adequate space for trucks and emergency vehicles to access the site and maneuver as needed, with adequate turning radii for truck access. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan or policy governing circulation. The following is noted for informational purposes only:

The TIA noted there are no curb ramps or interior pedestrian crossings within the access loop. In order to ensure accessible pedestrian circulation between all homes and the nearest roadways, at least two curb ramps shall be included on the inner side of the loop opposite new ramps on the outer edge of the loop, and a pair of ramps shall be added near the connection point to Skelly. This is included as a condition of approval.

Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. This study evaluates project-related VMT as outlined in the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. The methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by CCTA in July 2020. The City of Hercules has adopted CCTA VMT procedures and standards.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018) provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be with exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 136 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Using the CCTA methodologies, the proposed project would meet the exemption requirements for a low VMT area. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT.

The following language is from the Project Screening section of the CCTA VMT methodologies and was applied to the proposed project:

2.5: Projects Located in Low VMT Areas.

Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. A low VMT area is defined as follows:
• For housing projects: Cities and unincorporated portions within CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home-based VMT per capita that is 85 percent or less of the existing Countywide average.

The proposed project was evaluated using screening criteria adopted by CCTA based on existing VMT generated in the project area. For projects in areas with a similar mix of existing uses, residential projects are screened out if the home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide average.

The CCTA travel demand model generates simulated daily weekday VMT per capita by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within Contra Costa County and throughout the Bay Area for commute VMT per employee and residential VMT per capita. The project site is within the boundaries of an existing TAZ (#10236) that contains similar single-family residential subdivisions under existing conditions. The residential VMT per capita generated in this TAZ is 14.45. For the year 2020, the countywide residential VMT per capita generated by the CCTA travel demand model is 19.78. The corresponding threshold to consider a location to have low VMT, 15 percent below the countywide average, is

16.81. There is no apparent evidence that the proposed project would generate more VMT than the surrounding area. Based on the CCTA screening criteria, the proposed project is expected to cause a less than significant impact under CEQA and is exempt from further VMT analysis. The proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b); therefore, impacts related to VMT would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The TIA did not identify any hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. However, during design review and prior to issuance of grading permits, the proposed grading plans shall be carefully evaluated to ensure that the finished grade and landscaping do not create any visual obstructions for vehicles exiting driveways.

This is included as MM TRANS-1. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 137 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project is located in Zone 5 in the City’s Emergency Evacuation Routes and would use San Pablo Avenue in case of an evacuation.98 In case of an emergency that requires an evacuation, residents at the proposed project would travel north on San Pablo Avenue to SR-4 and continue out of town by means of I-80 or eastbound SR-4. On-site emergency access would be provided via an internal road with an access point from Skelly providing garage access to four homes. The internal road would be 34–45 feet wide throughout, which would provide adequate space for trucks and emergency vehicles to access the site and maneuver as needed, with adequate turning radii for truck access. Construction of the proposed project would not block any the adjacent neighborhood from accessing San Pablo Avenue.99 Furthermore, as described above, the proposed project would also provide adequate space for trucks and emergency vehicles to access the site and maneuver as needed, with adequate turning radii for truck access.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 During design review and prior to issuance of grading permits, the proposed grading plans shall be carefully evaluated to ensure that the finished grade and landscaping do not create any visual obstructions for vehicles exiting the driveway. Should the finished grade or landscaping create visual obstructions, the proposed landscaping shall be altered such that there would no longer be obstructions. 98 City of Hercules. 2005. Emergency Evacuation Route Zone 5. December. Website:
https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/402/636582802056930000. Accessed March 31, 2022. 99 City of Hercules. Emergency Evacuation Routes.https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/police/emergencypreparedness/emergency-evacuation-routes. Accessed March 31, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 138 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater 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?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The proposed project would obtain water from the EBMUD. The proposed project’s wastewater would be collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by the JPA. Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site. Solid Waste services would be provided by Republic Services.100 Electric power and natural gas would be provided by PG&E.

The information in this section is based, in part, on correspondence with Skelly Residential Project utility service providers. Correspondence consisted of an inquiry sent via email on February 24, 2022. Responses were provided to FCS between March 3, 2022, and March 16, 2022. 100 Republic Services Inc. Republic Services. Website:
https://www.republicservices.com/?utm_source=yext.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Yext_Profile_Click_Google&ut m_term=3854. Accessed February 23, 2022.

After treatment, water is distributed to the incorporated cities and unincorporated communities in Alameda and Contra Costa counties that EBMUD serves.101 The proposed project would connect to existing EBMUD water lines to the northwest, north, northeast, and south of the project site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant would submit information regarding any new water infrastructure and modifications to the existing water infrastructure. Any construction of water infrastructure would be required to comply with the City’s utility construction BMPs.

EBMUD adopted their 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in June of 2021.102 The 2020 UWMP predicts there would be adequate water supplies in its jurisdictional area for up to 30 years.

The project site is zoned as RS-L and the proposed project is consistent with that land use designation, meaning the proposed project can be considered planned growth that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase water demand such that it would, on its own, result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities.

On February 24, 2022, FCS sent a letter to David Rehnstrom at EBMUD inquiring about EBMUD’s ability to service the proposed project. On March 3, 2022, a response was received, stating that EBMUD owns and operated a 24-inch and 36-inch transmission pipeline within EBMUD rights-of-way and property surrounding and adjacent to the north, east, and south property lines. These pipelines provide continuous service to EBMUD customers in the area. Any proposed construction activity in EBMUD rights-of-way and property would be subject to the terms and conditions determined by EBMUD. EBMUD stated that no expansion of EBMUD facilities is anticipated to be needed to serve the project. However, a main extension, at the applicant’s expense, would be required to serve the proposed project. The proposed 8-inch water lines would connect to the existing water line. Impacts related to water services would be less than significant.

Wastewater
As described above, wastewater would be collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules WWTP which is operated by the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater JPA. Both the City of Hercules and Pinole own 50 percent of the WWTP. The applicant 101 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020. Website:
https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan/. Accessed February 23, 2022. 102 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). June 2021. Urban Water Management Plan 2020. Attachment 1.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 140 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx would pay fees for a permit for a sewer connection to the City’s wastewater infrastructure to ensure that the wastewater infrastructure maintains adequate capacity.103 On February 25, 2022, FCS sent a letter to Mike Roberts at the Department of Public Works inquiring about whether there would be adequate sewer capacity to serve the proposed project. It was concluded that prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the proposed project would require a complete sewer analysis to ensure the downstream conveyance system, including the lift station, has adequate capacity. Should the sewer analysis conclude that there is not adequate capacity, the project applicant would be required to enhance the storm drainage capacity as a standard condition of approval. Given this standard condition of approval, it would ensure that adequate stormwater drainage would be provided onsite. Impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Stormwater would drain into a detention basin at the northwest corner of the project site. This is required given the proposed project would involve the creation of more than 10,000 square feet of net new impervious surface. Runoff from proposed impervious surfaces would be directed to the bioretention areas, where a water quality treatment process would begin. Bioretention areas would remove pollutants by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil. In addition, all cities within Contra Costa County are required to implement surface water control standards for projects in compliance with Provision C.3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Storm Water NPDES Permit No. R2-201500049. The Contra Costa County Clean Water Program created a C.3 Guidebook for the implementation of C.3 requirements. As a result of planned drainage treatment features, impacts would be less than significant.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The project site would be serviced by PG&E for electricity and gas. The proposed project would connect to existing electric lines. No off-site construction of utilities would be required. The process of connecting the project to existing infrastructure is expected to be standard for conveying electrical power to new development. Construction would be conducted in compliance with City-approved BMPs for utilities infrastructure improvements and applicable construction-related mitigation measures identified in this Draft IS/MND (e.g., air quality emissions and noise). Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the 2020 UWMP predicts there would be adequate water supplies in its jurisdictional area for up to 30 years, accounting for an extreme drought scenario and a five-year historical dry period scenario. The project site is zoned as RS-L and the proposed project is consistent with that land use designation, meaning the proposed project can be considered planned growth that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. As described above, a letter from EBMUD stated that EBMUD would have capacity to serve the proposed project. EBMUD requested that a standard condition of approval be applied that the project sponsor comply with AB 103 City of Hercules. Sanitary Sewer. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-works/sanitary-sewer.

Accessed February 23, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 141 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx 325, “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance,” (Division 2, Title 23, California Code of regulations, Chapter 2.7, §§ 490–495). Therefore, the proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant. 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?
Less than significant impact. As described above, wastewater would be collected by sewer lines owned and maintained by the City of Hercules and treated at the Pinole/Hercules WWTP which is operated by the Pinole-Hercules Wastewater JPA. The applicant would pay fees for a permit for a sewer connection to the City’s wastewater infrastructure to ensure that the wastewater infrastructure maintains adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand.104 Furthermore, the wastewater provider would confirm that it has adequate capacity to serve the project prior to project approval. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less than significant impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project would exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violates federal, State, and local statutes and regulations.

The proposed project consists of a car wash facility. As described above, Republic Services is the solid waste services provider for the project site. Republic Services takes solid waste to Golden Bear Transfer Facility in the City of Richmond and subsequently to Keller Canyon Landfill, which is located at 901 Bailey Road in the City of Pittsburg. Keller Canyon Landfill has a daily permitted throughput, of 3,500 tons per day. As of 2004, the remaining capacity was 63,408,410 cubic yards.105 The maximum permitted capacity of the facility is 75,018,280 cubic yards. The landfill is expected to cease operation in the year 2050.

According to CalRecycle, single-family homes generate approximately 10 pounds per dwelling unit per day of solid waste.106 As such, the proposed project would generate approximately 400 pounds, or 0.2 tons per day. This is less than 0.0001 percent of the daily permitted throughout at Keller Canyon Landfill. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to dispose of waste generated from the proposed project.

On February 24, 2022, FCS sent a letter to Janna Coverston at Republic Services, inquiring about the Republic Services’ ability to serve the proposed project. On March 16, 2022, FCS received a response, stating that that Republic Services and its local affiliate facilities currently have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 104 City of Hercules. Sanitary Sewer. Website: https://www.ci.hercules.ca.us/government/engineering-public-works/sanitary-sewer.

Access February 23, 2022. 105 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2004. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Keller Canyon Landfill. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4407?siteID=228. Accessed February 23, 2022. 106 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates. Accessed February 23, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 142 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant. AB 939 requires local jurisdictions to achieve at least a 50 percent solid waste diversion rate. The City of Hercules is a member of the West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority, which is a JPA that aims to implement AB 939. Per Section Per Section 5-

2.07 of the Municipal Code, it would be the responsibility of the owner of each premises in the City to subscribe and pay for solid waste collection service. Therefore, it would be up to the occupant to comply with local regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

2.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate 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 downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for Contra Costa County, the City of Hercules is located within an LRA and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.107,108 The City is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The nearest fire hazard zone is located in the City of Pinole, approximately 1 mile southwest of the project site.

Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, including the Hercules Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP).
109 As previously mentioned, the proposed project is located in Zone 5 in the City’s 107 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA – Contra Costa County.

Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6662/fhszs_map7.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2022. 108 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2009. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Contra Costa County.

Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2022. 109 City of Hercules. 2020. Hercules Hazard Mitigation Plan. October 19.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 144 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Emergency Evacuation Routes and would use San Pablo Avenue in case of an evacuation. In case of an emergency that requires an evacuation, residents at the proposed project would travel north on San Pablo Avenue to SR-4 and continue out of town by means of I-80 or eastbound SR-4.

Incorporated in the project design, there would be a private street and EVA road that connects to Skelly and circles the project site. The EVA road would vary in width in different places, ranging from 34-feet wide to 45-feet wide. In addition, the Fire District would review the project plans to ensure there is appropriate fire access to the project area. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 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?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located in a LRA and is not located in a high fire hazard severity zone according to the Hercules LHMP. Although the project site is located 1 mile north of a fire hazard zone, the proposed project is not located in the urban-wildland interface area and is relatively flat and located in a residential area. Thus, the project site does not have features that would exacerbate wildfire.

According to CalFire, defensible space is a buffer between a building and the grass, trees, shrubs, or any wildland area that surround it. This space is needed to slow or stop the spread of wildfire and provide firefighters a safe area to work in.
110 As shown in Exhibit 5, the typical planting plan would include trees and vegetation but would allow firefighters to have access to individual lots and unimpeded access to the buildings from the road. While prevailing winds would not change from the existing conditions as a result of the proposed project, the proposed landscaping plan would reduce wildfire hazards on the project site as compared to the existing conditions. As discussed in the Arborist Report, existing fire hazards on the project site include dead trees, bark debris, species, low branches, dead branches, dead trunks, and entire trees, with many trees posing minimal fire hazards, as well as branch, trunk, and root failures that are likely to occur in the coming year.111 The proposed project would include vegetation management and removal of hazardous trees, which would reduce fire hazards as compared to the existing conditions. 112 Furthermore, there are no
wildland areas surrounding the project site. The proposed project is located within a highly urbanized, residential area that is not prone to wildfire. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the California Fire Code and 2019 CBC to reduce potential impacts regarding wildfire.

Additionally, the applicant must submit to the Fire District, subject to District review and approval, a Fire Protection Plan that details strategies and mitigation which reduce the potential for loss from wildfire exposure. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. 110 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Defensible Space. Website:
https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/communications/defensible-space-prc-4291/. Accessed April 21, 2022. 111 Trees, Bugs, Dirt Landscape Consulting and Training. 2022. Arborist Report, 215 Skelly – Hercules, CA. March. 112 Grijalva, R. 2022. Memorandum: Analysis of State Fire Marshal Property Loss Data, from the California Building Industry Association.

January. Website: https://blog.aklandlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/282/2022/04/D-5.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2022.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 145 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx 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? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would include an EVA road that would connect to Skelly and circle the project site. The existing transmission lines located along publicly accessible roads would continue to be maintained by PG&E. As part of the building permit process, the applicant is required to prepare a Fire Prevention Plan for construction and ongoing operations, which includes provisions for EVA and turn-around, vegetation management, defensible space, and fire break maintenance around all structures. During project construction and operation, the use of powered equipment for installation, maintenance, and improvements could temporarily increase fire risk on the project site. However, compliance with all applicable fire protection design and operational standards including emergency water supply, temporary emergency access, and fuel reduction, must meet or exceed Fire District wildland-urban interface requirements and California Fire Code Sections 4906 and 4907. The proposed project would not require the installation of any associated infrastructure or utilities outside of the existing site footprint. Compliance with the Fire Prevention Plan would reduce the temporary impacts to a less than significant level. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact. The project site is located within an urbanized and residential area of the City that has not experienced wildfire. Additionally, the project site is not located near unmanaged open space or dense natural vegetation prone to wildfires. Further, the proposed project would comply with all applicable fire protection design and operational standards including emergency water supply, temporary emergency access, and fuel reduction, meet or exceed Fire District wildland-urban interface requirements and California Fire Code Sections 4906 and 4907.

Therefore, impacts related would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 146 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would demolish existing structures on the project site and construct 40 single-family residences. Although the existing structures are over 45 years old, as described above, they sustained significant damage due to a man-made fire and do not represent important examples of California history. As related to the proposed project, as described previously in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts to wildlife or plant species with mitigation incorporated. The analysis provides for mitigation in the event any nesting birds, roosting bats, or overwintering monarch butterflies are encountered. Other biological resources mitigations include avoidance and minimization measures for on-site aquatic features and protection of mature trees via a tree inventory and replacement plan.

Additionally, the proposed project includes mitigation and avoidance measures to reduce construction-related impacts related to historical and archaeological resources as well as the City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Checklist and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions 147 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx accidental discovery or recognition of human remains. Mitigation to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources include providing the construction crew with an orientation on significant fossils that could be encountered and the appropriate procedures to follow. Based on the discussion provided above, with implementation of the above-listed mitigation measures, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM GEO-2.
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)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The combined effects of past, current, and future projects in the project area in combination with the proposed project in an urban area of Contra Costa County would not result in significant cumulative impacts. The project is proposed in an established urban area and there are no planned or proposed developments in the immediate site vicinity that could contribute to cumulative environmental items discussed below.

The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, noise, and transportation. These impacts would primarily be related to construction period activities, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially contribute to any potential cumulative impacts associated with these topics. Specifically, since the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance related to air quality, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction emissions (with the implementation of MM AIR-1), operational emissions, or TACs. As discussed more fully in Section 2.8 of this Draft IS/MND, GHG emissions-related impacts are inherently cumulative in nature. The proposed project also would not conflict with any applicable GHG plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As such, the proposed plan, in conjunction with other existing, planned, and probable foreseeable projects, would not results in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions generation. As for transportation and traffic impacts, mitigation measures are provided to ensure accessible pedestrian circulation and reduce visual obstructions for vehicles.

These impacts are also specific to the proposed project and would not contribute to a cumulative transportation impact.

Therefore, with implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts at a project- or cumulative-level.

Environmental Checklist and City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project Environmental Evaluation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 148 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Based on the information provided in the Project Description and the responses to Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this Draft IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. With implementation of all mitigation measures discussed herein, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of all mitigation measures discussed in this Draft IS/MND.

City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers FirstCarbon Solutions 149 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2118/21180006/ISMND/21180006 Hercules Skelly Residential Project ISMND.docx SECTION 3: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.357.2562
Fax: 925.357.2572
Project Director .......................................................................................................................Mary Bean Project Manager............................................................................................................................. Tsui Li Assistant Project Manager................................................................................................. Maddie Dolan Senior Noise Specialist................................................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED AP Air Quality Specialist................................................................................................................Lance Park Air Quality Analyst........................................................................................................................... Ji Luo Senior Biologist......................................................................................................... Bernhard Warzecha Biologist..............................................................................................................................Robert Carroll Senior Cultural Resources Specialist................................................................. Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Archaeologist ................................................................................................................... Natalie Adame Publications Manager............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Word Processor ..............................................................................................................Melissa Ramirez Graphics....................................................................................................................... Karlee McCracken TJKM—Transportation Analysis Technical Subconsultant
4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone 925.463.0611

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Hercules–Skelly Residential Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
FirstCarbon Solutions
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Supporting Information

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A: Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy
Supporting Information
Table of Contents
Project CalEEMod Notes.......................................................................................................... 1 Project Development Phasing Schedule................................................................................... 4 CalEEMod Modeling for Purposes of Air Dispersion Modeling ................................................ 6 Architectural Coating Building Surface Area Adjustments ....................................................... 8 Demolition Calculations .......................................................................................................... 9 Project Construction Emissions.............................................................................................. 10 Project Operational Emissions Summary ............................................................................... 11 Project Operational GHG Emissions Summary ...................................................................... 12 Construction and Operational CalEEMod Outputs ................................................................ 13 Project Construction Trailer CalEEMod Outputs .................................................................... 94 Construction DPM Emissions................................................................................................110 Existing Stationary Sources ..................................................................................................114 Health Risk Assessment Health Risk Results .........................................................................115 Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator ...............................................................................119 AERMOD Output Files ..........................................................................................................120 Project Energy Calculations ..................................................................................................208 Hercules Skelly Road Residential Project CalEEMod Notes Note 1. Land uses and sizes associated with development of the proposed project are drawn from correspondence with the Project Applicant as well as the following site plans:
 Cbg, LOTTING PLAN, dated November 2021
 Cbg, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, dated January 2022 The following land uses represent the described project features:

Parking > Parking Lot > 62.32 x 1000sqft = Proposed interior streets on Parcels A and C.

Recreational > City Park > 0.51 x acre = Proposed landscaping on Parcels B and D. As provided by the Project Applicant, 25 percent of Parcel D would be graded while only 12.5 percent would be landscaped. Therefore, the project’s construction models reflect a total City Park land use of 0.51 acre while the project’s operational models reflect a total City Park land use of 0.45 acre.

Parking > Other Non‐Asphalt Surfaces > 0.09 x acre = Proposed grading and resurfacing of Parcel G within the public utility easement. As provided by the Project Applicant, Parcel F would also involve grading activities but would not involve any landscaping or resurfacing.

Therefore, the project’s construction models reflect a total Other Non‐Asphalt Surfaces land use of 0.09 acre while the project’s operational models reflect a total Other Non‐Asphalt Surfaces land use of 0.08 acre.

Residential > Single Family Housing > 40 x Dwelling Unit = Proposed housing development, adjusted to reflect a gross building square footage of 74,740 square feet and lot acreage of

4.86 acres. As provided by the Project Applicant, the proposed project would be constructed in several phases. Please refer to the Construction Phasing and Schedule sheet contained in this appendix for more information for how the 40 proposed homes are assigned to their respective construction phases.

Note 2. According to information provided by the Project Applicant, the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in 5 phases starting in October 2023. Each phase is anticipated to occur for 4 to 4.5 months, and each phase is anticipated to begin 1 month after the previous phase begins. Construction activity dates and durations were adjusted to reflect the phasing information provided by the Project Applicant. Where applicable, construction equipment was also adjusted in the model to reflect applicant‐provided information. As the Project Applicant has provided, the equipment utilized in the modeling will be shared across all construction phases. Therefore, the CalEEMod construction phases were consolidated to avoid erroneously duplicating the use of construction equipment. Please refer to the Construction Phasing and Schedule sheet contained in this appendix for more information.

Note 3. According to information provided by the Project Applicant, cut and fill grading activities will balance on‐site and no soil will need to be imported or exported. In addition, according to aerial imagery of the project site utilizing Google Earth, approximately 40,000 square feet of existing pavement and approximately 17,000 square feet of building space would be removed during demolition activities. As such, an estimated 2,266 cubic yards of demolition Appendix A Page 1
debris would be removed from the project site during demolition activities. Please refer to the Demolition Calculations sheet contained in this appendix for more information.

Note 4. Because project construction needed to be separated into two separate models (one representing construction activity occurring before the introduction of on‐site receptors and one representing construction activity occurring after the introduction of on‐site receptors) for purposes of use in the air dispersion modeling for the construction health risk assessment, the architectural coating surface square footage associated “Residential Interior” and “Residential Exterior” were adjusted to match the proportional coating activity occurring within each model and within each construction phase. Please refer to the Architectural Coating Building Surface Area Adjustments sheet in this appendix for a more detail on how surface area square footage was broken down between the two models.

Note 5. For all construction models, all operational emission factors were reduced to zero to isolate the construction emission results in the modeling output files. For the operational models, all construction details were reduced to zero to isolate the operational emissions in the modeling output files.

Note 6. BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended For All Proposed Projects were applied the model, which would be required under MM AIR‐1 to ensure that the proposed project would result in a less‐than‐significant impact related to fugitive dust emissions during construction. To represent this in the modeling, the model was adjusted to include watering of exposed areas at minimum twice per day and limiting construction vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

Note 7. [Removed]
Note 8. The TIA estimated that the proposed project would generate 9.43 trips per dwelling unit for a total of 377 daily weekday vehicle trips during project operation.1 As such, the model was adjusted to ensure that the proposed project would generate 9.43 vehicle trips per unit and at least 377 vehicle trips per day.

Note 9. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with BAAQMD District Regulation 6, Rule 3, which prohibits any person or builder from installing a wood‐burning device in new building construction. Therefore, no wood‐burning hearths are included in the project modeling.

Note 10. According to information provided by the Project Applicant, the proposed project would include rooftop solar, as required by the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). It should be noted that the solar requirement contained in the CBC pertain only to residential buildings containing three habitable stories or less. Therefore, all the proposed single‐family houses in the proposed project would be subject to the rooftop solar requirements in the CBC.

According to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 8 – Low‐Rise Residential Building – Performance and Prescriptive Compliance Approaches, Section 150.1(c)14, “[a]ll low‐rise residential buildings shall have a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11, with annual 1 Ibid.

Appendix A Page 2
electrical output equal or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage as determined by Equation 150.1‐C:”
Equation 150.1‐C Annual Photovoltaic Electrical Output
kWPV = (CFA x A)/1,000 + (NDwell x B)
Where:
kWPV = kWdc size of the PV system
CFA = conditioned floor area
NDwell = number of dwelling units
A = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1‐C
B = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1‐C
The proposed project is located in climate zone 3,2 and the total conditioned floor area of the proposed project is 74,740 square feet. As identified in Table 150.1‐C of the above referenced section, the appropriate A adjustment factor is 0.628 and B adjustment factor is as 1.12.

Therefore:
kWPV = (74,740 x 0.628)/1,000 + (40 x 1.12) = 91.7 kWPV While this accounts for the entire project’s kW PV system, it does not provide the annual production rate that would be generated by this size of system. Since there are 40 dwelling units within the proposed project, the averaged PV output is 2.3 kW per dwelling unit.

According to TheEcoExperts.com, a 2 kW PV system has an average annual production rate of 1,700 kWh/year.3 The below equation applies the same average annual production rate to the calculated 2.3 kW system.
(2.3/2) * 1,700 kWh/year = 1,955 kWh/year
Therefore, the proposed project is expected to result in an average on‐site electricity generation rate of 1,955 kWh per year per dwelling unit, which equates to 78,200 kWh per year given there are 40 dwelling units.
2 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. California Building Climate Zones. Website: https://cecgis‐ caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/549017ee96e341d2bbb3dd0c291a9112_0/explore?location=37.79092 2%2C‐121.947109%2C9.21. Accessed March 10, 2022. 3 TheEcoExperts. 2020. Solar Panel Output. Website: http://www.theecoexperts.com/solar‐panel‐output/.

Accessed March 8, 2022.

Appendix A Page 3
Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date
Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
Demolition 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 82
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Site Preparation (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 82 3 4,592 1,583 ‐ Grading (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 12/6/2023 5 41 4 4,000         ‐ 1,859 Building Construction (Model Homes Only) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 10 Model Home Totals 8,592 3,442 Paving (Interior Roadways & Foundations) 12/1/2023 2/1/2024 5 45 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 10 Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
27 6,399 1,583 1 Building Construction 2/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 8928 6,565 1,859 1 Architectural Coating 2/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 79 29 6,387 1,583 1
30 6,391 2,311 1
25 5,375 1,583 1
26 5,720 1,859 1
31 3,915 1,859 1
32 5,033 2,311 1
Phase 1 Totals 45,785 14,948
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
22 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction 3/2/2024 7/1/2024 5 8623 5,375 1,583 2 Architectural Coating 3/16/2024 7/1/2024 5 76 24 5,375 1,859 2
33 3,836 1,859 2
18 5,375 1,859 2
19 5,375 1,583 2
20 5,375 1,859 2
21 5,375 1,583 2
Phase 2 Totals 41,461 14,044
Model Homes
Single‐Family Home Development Phasing Schedule
Construction Phasing
Phase 2 ConstructionPhase 1 Construction
Appendix
A Page 4
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
15 6,806 1,583 3 Building Construction 4/2/2024 8/11/2024 5 94 16 6,705 2,311 3 Architectural Coating 4/17/2024 8/11/2024 5 83 17 5,375 1,583 3
34 4,806 1,859 3
13 4,005 1,583 3
14 4,519 1,859 3
35 4,352 1,583 3
36 4,352 1,859 3
Phase 3 Totals 40,920 14,220
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
10 5,040 1,583 4 Building Construction 5/2/2024 9/1/2024 5 8711 5,040 2,311 4 Architectural Coating 5/16/2024 9/1/2024 5 77 12 6,882 2,311 4
37 4,861 1,583 4
8 4,388 1,859 49 5,797 2,311 4
38 3,939 1,583 4
39 4,538 1,859 4
Totals 40,485 15,400
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
5 5,000 2,311 5 Building Construction 6/2/2024 10/30/2024 5 108 6 5,625 1,859 5 Architectural Coating 6/19/2024 10/30/2024 5 96 7 5,163 1,583 5
40 6,421 2,311 5
1 6,877 2,311 52 5,422 2,311 5
Totals 34,508 12,686
Phase 3 ConstructionPhase 4 ConstructionPhase 5 Construction Appendix
A Page 5
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
3 4,592 1,583 ‐ Demolition 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 824 4,000         ‐ 1,859 Site Preparation (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 82 27 6,399 1,583 1 Grading (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 12/6/2023 5 4128 6,565 1,859 1 Building Construction (Model Homes Only) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 1029 6,387 1,583 1 Paving (Interior Roadways & Foundations) 12/1/2023 2/1/2024 5 45 30 6,391 2,311 1 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 1025 5,375 1,583 1 Building Construction (Phase 1) 2/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 8926 5,720 1,859 1 Architectural Coating (Phase 1) 2/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 79 31 3,915 1,859 1 Building Construction (Phase 2) 3/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 6832 5,033 2,311 1 Architectural Coating (Phase 2) 3/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 58 22 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 3) 4/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 4723 5,375 1,583 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 3) 4/17/2024 6/5/2024 5 36 24 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 4) 5/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 2533 3,836 1,859 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 4) 5/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 15 18 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 5) 6/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 3 19 5,375 1,583 2
20 5,375 1,859 2 Demolition 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 82
21 5,375 1,583 2 Site Preparation (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 8215 6,806 1,583 3 Grading (Site‐Wide) 10/11/2023 12/6/2023 5 4116 6,705 2,311 3 Building Construction (Model Homes) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 10 17 5,375 1,583 3 Paving (Interior Roadways & Foundations) 12/1/2023 2/1/2024 5 45 34 4,806 1,859 3 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 1013 4,005 1,583 3 Building Construction (Pre‐Receptors) 2/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 89 14 4,519 1,859 3 Architectural Coating (Pre‐Receptors) 2/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 79 35 4,352 1,583 3
36 4,352 1,859 3
10 5,040 1,583 4
11 5,040 2,311 412 6,882 2,311 4
37 4,861 1,583 4
8 4,388 1,859 49 5,797 2,311 4
38 3,939 1,583 4
39 4,538 1,859 4
5 5,000 2,311 5
6 5,625 1,859 57 5,163 1,583 5
40 6,421 2,311 5
1 6,877 2,311 52 5,422 2,311 5
Totals 211,751 74,740
CalEEMod Modeling Breakdown for Purposes of Air Dispersion Modeling As Modeled in CalEEMod (Equipment is Shared Across Phases) Pre‐Sensitive Receptor Development
(First introduction of sensitive receptors upon completion of Phase 1 on 6/5/2024) Appendix
A Page 6
Lot No. Lot SF Bldg SF Phase Construction Activity Phase Start Date Phase End Date Working Days per
Week
Total Number of
Working Days
22 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 2) 6/6/2024 7/1/2024 5 1823 5,375 1,583 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 2) 6/6/2024 7/1/2024 5 1824 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 3) 6/6/2024 8/11/2024 5 47 33 3,836 1,859 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 3) 6/6/2024 8/11/2024 5 47 18 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 4) 6/6/2024 9/1/2024 5 6219 5,375 1,583 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 4) 6/6/2024 9/1/2024 5 6220 5,375 1,859 2 Building Construction (Phase 5) 6/6/2024 10/30/2024 5 105 21 5,375 1,583 2 Architectural Coating (Phase 5) 6/19/2024 10/30/2024 5 96 15 6,806 1,583 3
16 6,705 2,311 3 Building Construction (Post‐Receptors) 6/6/2024 10/30/2024 5 105 17 5,375 1,583 3 Architectural Coating (Post‐Receptors) 6/6/2024 10/30/2024 5 105 34 4,806 1,859 3
13 4,005 1,583 3
14 4,519 1,859 3
35 4,352 1,583 3
36 4,352 1,859 3
10 5,040 1,583 4
11 5,040 2,311 412 6,882 2,311 4
37 4,861 1,583 4
8 4,388 1,859 49 5,797 2,311 4
38 3,939 1,583 4
39 4,538 1,859 4
5 5,000 2,311 5
6 5,625 1,859 57 5,163 1,583 5
40 6,421 2,311 5
1 6,877 2,311 52 5,422 2,311 5
Totals 157,374 56,350
As Modeled in CalEEMod (Equipment is Shared Across Phases) Post‐Sensitive Receptor Development
(All development occurring after 6/5/2024)
Appendix
A Page 7
Total Building
Area (SF)
Proportional
Share
3,442 5%
14,948 20%
14,044 19%14,220 19%15,400 21%12,686 17%74,740 100%
Before Receptors After Receptors Before Receptors After Receptors 10 0 10 100% 0%79 0 79 100% 0%58 18 76 76% 24%
36 47 83 43% 57%
15 62 77 19% 81%
096 96 0% 100%
Before Receptors After Receptors Before Receptors After Receptors 151,349 50,450                 ‐                    6,970                 ‐                    2,323 151,349 50,450               ‐                    30,270 10,090 ‐                   151,349 50,450 21,704 6,736 7,235 2,245 151,349 50,450 12,490 16,306 4,163 5,435151,349 50,450 6,075 25,110 2,025 8,370151,349 50,450 ‐               ‐                    25,689 8,563 Totals 151,349 50,450 77,508 73,841 25,836 24,614
Architectural Coating (Phase 1)
Construction Activity
Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes)
Architectural Coating (Phase 1)Architectural Coating (Phase 2)Architectural Coating (Phase 3)Architectural Coating (Phase 4)Architectural Coating (Phase 5)TotalArchitectural Coating (Phase 2)Architectural Coating (Phase 3) Number of Working Days Proportional Share
Construction ActivityConstruction Activity
Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes)
Architectural Coating (Phase 1)Architectural Coating (Phase 2)Architectural Coating (Phase 3)Architectural Coating (Phase 4) Proportional Exterior Area (SF)
Architectural Coating (Phase 4)Architectural Coating (Phase 5) Proportional Interior Area (SF)
Total Working
Days
Total Residential
Interior (SF)
Total Residential
Exterior (SF)
Architectural Coating Building Surface Area Adjustments Architectural Coating (Phase 5)Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) Appendix
A Page 8
Demolition Debris Calculations
1 building sq ft 10 cf building volume
1 cf building volume 0.25 cf waste volume
1 cf 0.037 cy
1 cy waste volume 0.5 ton waste weight
1 sf 0.04625 ton waste material
Description square feet2 height/ depth (ft)3 density (lbs/cf)4 Demolition Weight (pounds) Demolition Weight (tons) Buildings 17,000 ‐‐ ‐ 786.25Pavement 40,000 0.5 148 2,960,000 1,480.00 Totals 57,000 ‐‐ ‐ 2,266
Notes:cy = cubic yard
gsf = gross square feet
sf = square feetcf = cubic feet
1 Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.2 Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery. Accessed March 23, 2022.3 Source: DC Construction Services. 2017. How Thick Is Parking Lot Asphalt? Website: https://dccpaving.com/how‐thick‐is‐parking‐lot‐asphalt/. Accessed March 23, 2022.4 Source: SFGate. 2021. How to Calculate Asphalt Weight Per Yard. Website: https://homeguides.sfgate.com/calculate‐asphalt‐weight‐per‐yard‐81825.html. Accessed March 23, 2022.

Parameters1
Appendix A Page 9
Construction Activity ROG NOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Metric ROG NOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
on site 0.02112 0.16570 0.00808 0.00783 Total Emissions (tons) 0.72 1.59 0.07 0.07 off site 0.00076 0.01542 0.00014 0.00012 Total Emissions (lbs) 1,432.96 3,184.76 139.40 131.80 Demolition 0.02188 0.18112 0.00822 0.00795 Average Daily Emissions (lbs/workday) 5.19 11.54 0.51 0.48 on site 0.00612 0.06190 0.00300 0.00275 Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 off site 0.00032 0.00022 0.00000 0.00000
Site Preparation (Site‐Wide) 0.00644 0.06212 0.00300 0.00275 on site 0.02500 0.27300 0.01120 0.01030 Construction Phase Workdays off site 0.00043 0.00029 0.00001 0.00001 Demolition 82
Grading (Site‐Wide) 0.02543 0.27329 0.01121 0.01031 Site Preparation (Site‐Wide) 82 on site 0.00398 0.03880 0.00174 0.00164 Grading (Site‐Wide) 41 off site 0.00074 0.00466 0.00004 0.00003 Building Construction (Model Homes) 10 Building Construction (Model Homes) 0.00472 0.04346 0.00178 0.00167 Paving (Roadways & Model Homes) 45 on site 0.01322 0.11070 0.00549 0.00505 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) 10 off site 0.00045 0.00030 0.00000 0.00000 Building Construction (Pre‐Receptors) 89 Paving (Roadways & Model Homes) 0.01367 0.11100 0.00549 0.00505 Architectural Coating (Pre‐Receptors) 79 on site 0.01470 0.00609 0.00030 0.00030 Building Construction (Post‐Receptors) 105 off site 0.00024 0.00016 0.00000 0.00000 Architectural Coating (Post‐Receptors) 105 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) 0.01494 0.00625 0.00030 0.00030 Net Working Days 276 on site 0.03540 0.34540 0.01550 0.01460
off site 0.00659 0.04140 0.00031 0.00029
Building Construction (Pre‐Receptors) 0.04199 0.38680 0.01581 0.01489 Mitigation Applied on site 0.27660 0.04810 0.00241 0.00241 MM AIR‐1 BAAQMD Construction Dust Control Measures off site 0.00096 0.00063 0.00002 0.00001
Architectural Coating (Pre‐Receptors) 0.27756 0.04873 0.00243 0.00242 on site 0.04180 0.40750 0.01820 0.01730
off site 0.00159 0.00794 0.00006 0.00006
Building Construction (Post‐Receptors) 0.04339 0.41544 0.01826 0.01736 Modeling Files:
on site 0.26620 0.06400 0.00320 0.00320 Name: Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual off site 0.00026 0.00017 0.00000 0.00000 Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM Architectural Coating (Post‐Receptors) 0.26646 0.06417 0.00320 0.00320 Total On site 0.70414 1.52119 0.06912 0.06538 Name: Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual Total Off site 0.01234 0.07119 0.00058 0.00052 Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM Total Construction Emissions 0.71648 1.59238 0.06970 0.06590 Construction Emissions (tons) Average Daily Construction Emissions Project Construction Emissions
Mitigation Description
Note: The application of MM AIR‐1 (BAAQMD Dust Control Measures) would reduce the generation of fugitive dust emissions and would not affect ROG, NOx, PM10 Exhaust, or PM2.5 Exhaust emission estimates.

Appendix
A Page 10
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual CalEEMod Run: Annual Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
ROG NOx
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Area 0.37 0.01 0.02 0.02Energy 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01Mobile 0.16 0.18 0.32 0.09Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 0.79 0.60 0.46 0.11BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
ROG NOx
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Total Emissions (tons) 0.79 0.60 0.46 0.11
Total Emissions (lbs) 1,586 1,203 917 222
Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 4.34 3.30 2.51 0.61BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54Project Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Tons per Year
Average Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Project Operational Emissions Summary
Emissions Source
Appendix
A Page 11
Construction ‐ GHG Emissions
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual CalEEMod Run: Annual Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual CalEEMod Run: Annual Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Demolition
Site Preparation (Site‐Wide)
Grading (Site‐Wide)
Paving (Roadways & Foundations)
Building Construction (Model Homes)
Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes)
Building Construction (Pre‐Receptors)
Architectural Coating (Pre‐receptors)
Building Construction (Post‐Receptors)
Architectural Coating (Post‐Receptors)
Total
Amortized Over 30 Years
Operations ‐ GHG Emissions
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation ‐ Contra Costa County, Annual CalEEMod Run: Annual Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
Amortized Construction
Area
Energy
Mobile
Waste
Water
Total
Applicable Threshold (MT CO2e/year)
Exceeds Threshold?
12 12
434
No
6 660
14 107
282
24 4
11 Project Operational GHG Emissions Summary
Emissions Source
CO2e
Metric Tons per Year
Emissions Source
Year 2024 CO2e
(Metric Tons/Year)
34 24
80 331
11 49
10 2
93 Appendix A Page 12
Construction Phase - Note 2
Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Note 2 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - Note 1
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2024

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
0 Single Family Housing 40.00 Dwelling Unit 4.86 74,740.00 114 City Park 0.51 Acre 0.51 22,215.60
0 Parking Lot 62.32 1000sqft 1.43 62,320.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.09 Acre 0.09 3,920.40
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors)
Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Appendix
A Page 13
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Interior 151,349.00 0.00 tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 50,450.00 0.00tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Interior 151,349.00 77,508.00tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 3,974.00 0.00tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 50,450.00 25,836.00tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 1.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior 2.00 0.00 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Note 6Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Area Coating - Note 5Landscape Equipment - Note 5Energy Use - Note 5Water And Wastewater - Note 5Solid Waste - Note 5Grading - Note 3Architectural Coating - Note 4Vehicle Trips - Note 5Woodstoves - Note 5Consumer Products - Note 5Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Note 2Trips and VMT - Demolition - Note 3 Appendix
A Page 14
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 72,000.00 74,740.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.99 4.86 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblLandscapeEquipment NumberSummerDays 180 0
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 11.14 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.50 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 45.71 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 35,976.14 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24E 6,155.97 0.00 tblEnergyUse NT24NG 2,615.00 0.00tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.35 0.00 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1,608.84 0.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_Degreaser 3.542E-07 0tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_PesticidesFertilizers 5.152E-08 0 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 79.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 89.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 82.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 41.00
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 82.00
Appendix
A Page 15
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 21.06 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 956.80 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 607,655.49 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 1,643,014.56 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 2,606,161.02 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.55 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.54 0.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0.00
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 47.88 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 0.04 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 Appendix
A Page 16
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0229 3.5200e003 1.6500e- 0.0248 0.0548 0.0000 146.9708 146.9708 148.5903 003 Maximum 0.3543 0.6104 0.7721 0.0782 0.0261 0.1003 0.0341 146.9708 146.9708 0.0229 3.5200e003 148.5903

0.0219 8.3000e004 88.5828
2024 0.3543 0.6104 0.7721 1.6500e003 0.0365 0.0261 0.0626 9.4700e-003 0.0248 0.0342 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0207 0.0548 0.0000 87.7879 87.7879
003
2023 0.0523 0.5024 0.4992 0.0782 0.0221 0.1003 0.0341
CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0229 3.5200e003 148.5904
Mitigated Construction

1.6500e- 0.0248 0.0948 0.0000 146.9710 146.9710
003
Maximum 0.3543 0.6104 0.7721 0.1675 0.0261 0.1896 0.0742 146.9710 146.9710 0.0229 3.5200e003 148.5904

0.0219 8.3000e004 88.5829
2024 0.3543 0.6104 0.7721 1.6500e003 0.0404 0.0261 0.0665 0.0101 0.0248 0.0348 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0207 0.0948 0.0000 87.7880 87.7880
003
2023 0.0523 0.5024 0.4992 0.1675 0.0221 0.1896 0.0742
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 17
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest 0.5832 0.5832
9 4-7-2024 7-6-2024 0.3830 0.38308 1-7-2024 4-6-2024 0.5531 0.55317 10-7-2023 1-6-2024 0.5832 0.5832 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.83 0.02 36.39 48.24 0.00 31.33 0.00 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2
Appendix
A Page 18
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 5 82
3 Grading (Site-Wide) Grading 10/11/2023 12/6/2023 5 412 Site Preparation (Site-Wide) Site Preparation 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/11/2023 2/1/2024 5 82
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date

0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 19
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.48 Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes)
Air Compressors 1 6.00 78

0.74 Building Construction (Model Homes) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction (Model Homes) Generator Sets 1 8.00 84

0.29 Building Construction (Model Homes) Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction (Model Homes) Cranes 1 7.00 231

0.36 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132

0.37 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42 Grading (Site-Wide) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97

0.41 Grading (Site-Wide) Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading (Site-Wide) Graders 1 8.00 187

0.38 Site Preparation (Site-Wide) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158
Acres of Paving: 1.52
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 2; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1; Striped Parking Area: 3,974 (Architectural OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor 5 79
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 41
8 Architectural Coating (Pre-Receptors)Architectural Coating 2/16/2024 6/5/2024 5 10
7 Building Construction (PreReceptors) Building Construction 2/2/2024 6/5/2024 5 89 6 Architectural Coating (Pavement &
Model Homes)
Architectural Coating 1/19/2024 2/1/2024
5 45
5 Building Construction (Model Homes)Building Construction 1/19/2024 2/1/2024 5 104 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) Paving 12/1/2023 2/1/2024 Appendix
A Page 20
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads HHDT
Architectural Coating
(Pre-Receptors)
1 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix
(Pre-Receptors)
4 52.00 19.00 0.00
HHDT
Architectural Coating
(Pavement & Model
1 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix
(Pavement & Model
1 10.00 0.00 0.00
HHDT
Building Construction
(Model Homes)
4 52.00 19.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving (Roadways & 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix
Foundations)
3 8.00 0.00 0.00
HHDT
Grading (Site-Wide) 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation (Site- 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix Wide)
1 3.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor Vehicle
Class
Hauling Vehicle
Class
Demolition 2 5.00 0.00 224.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number

0.45 Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45Building Construction (Model Homes) Welders 0 8.00 46

0.40 Site Preparation (Site-Wide) Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247

0.73 Grading (Site-Wide) Excavators 0 8.00 158 0.38Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81

0.37 Architectural Coating (Pre-Receptors) Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97

0.20 Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) Forklifts 1 8.00 89 Appendix
A Page 21
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.6177 5.6177 1.8000e004 7.8000e- 004 5.8529

3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 0.9027
Total 5.4000e004 0.0109 5.7500e- 003 6.0000e- 005 2.4900e-003 1.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 6.8000e-004 9.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 3.1000e-004 0.0000 0.8945 0.8945 005 1.1500e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 Worker 3.8000e- 3.1000e-004 004 2.6000e- 004 3.2500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.5000e004 7.5000e- 004 4.9503
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

8.0000e005 5.0000e- 4.5000e-004 0.0000 4.7233 4.7233 005 1.3400e-003 9.0000e- 005 1.4300e- 003 Hauling 1.6000e- 3.7000e-004 004 0.0107 2.5000e- 003 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

5.0200e003 0.0000 28.8746
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

5.7400e003 3.3000e- 8.3400e-003 0.0000 28.7490 28.7490 004 0.0172 5.9200e- 003 Total 0.0152 0.1199 0.2005 0.0231 2.6000e-003

28.7490 28.7490 5.0200e003 0.0000 28.8746

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1199 0.2005 3.3000e004 5.9200e- 003 5.9200e- 003 5.7400e- 003 5.7400e-003 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0172 0.0000 0.0172 2.6000e-003 0.0000 2.6000e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

3.2 Demolition - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Appendix
A Page 22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.6177 5.6177 1.8000e004 7.8000e- 004 5.8529

3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 0.9027
Total 5.4000e004 0.0109 5.7500e- 003 6.0000e- 005 2.4900e-003 1.0000e- 004 2.5900e- 003 6.8000e-004 9.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 3.1000e-004 0.0000 0.8945 0.8945 005 1.1500e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.1600e- 003 Worker 3.8000e- 3.1000e-004 004 2.6000e- 004 3.2500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1.5000e004 7.5000e- 004 4.9503
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.0200e003 0.0000 28.8746
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

5.7400e003 3.3000e- 6.9100e-003 0.0000 28.7490 28.7490 004 7.7200e-003 5.9200e- 003 Total 0.0152 0.1199 0.2005 0.0136 1.1700e-003

28.7490 28.7490 5.0200e003 0.0000 28.8746

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0152 0.1199 0.2005 3.3000e004 5.9200e- 003 5.9200e- 003 5.7400e- 003 5.7400e-003 0.0000

7.7200e-003 0.0000 7.7200e- 0.0000 1.1700e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003
Fugitive Dust 1.1700e-003
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.8000e-004 0.0000 4.8000e- 0.0000 1.3000e-004 0.0000 0.3581 0.3581 0.3612 004 Worker 1.5000e- 1.3000e-004 004 1.0000e- 004 1.2500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0000e005 3.1000e- 004 2.0166
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.0000e005 2.0000e- 1.9000e-004 0.0000 1.9241 1.9241 005 5.6000e-004 4.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 Hauling 7.0000e- 1.5000e-004 005 4.4200e- 003 1.0400e- 003 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

2.0700e003 0.0000 11.9496
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

2.0900e003 1.4000e- 3.1600e-003 0.0000 11.8979 11.8979 004 7.1000e-003 2.1600e- 003 9.2600e- 003 Total 5.9200e- 1.0700e-003 003 0.0458 0.0830

11.8979 11.8979 2.0700e003 0.0000 11.9496

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.9200e003 0.0458 0.0830 1.4000e- 004 2.1600e- 003 2.1600e- 003 2.0900e- 003 2.0900e-003 0.0000

7.1000e-003 0.0000 7.1000e- 0.0000 1.0700e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003
Fugitive Dust 1.0700e-003
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.2 Demolition - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 24
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0000e005 3.1000e- 004 2.0166
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.0700e003 0.0000 11.9496
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

2.0900e003 1.4000e- 2.5700e-003 0.0000 11.8979 11.8979 004 3.1900e-003 2.1600e- 003 5.3500e- 003 Total 5.9200e- 4.8000e-004 003 0.0458 0.0830

11.8979 11.8979 2.0700e003 0.0000 11.9496

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.9200e003 0.0458 0.0830 1.4000e- 004 2.1600e- 003 2.1600e- 003 2.0900e- 003 2.0900e-003 0.0000

3.1900e-003 0.0000 3.1900e- 0.0000 4.8000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003
Fugitive Dust 4.8000e-004
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

2.2822 2.2822 7.0000e005 3.2000e- 004 Total 2.2000e- 2.3778 004 4.5200e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e-003 4.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 2.8000e-004 3.0000e- 005 3.2000e-004 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 25
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

2.5700e003 0.0000 7.9981
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

2.0200e003 9.0000e- 2.0200e-003 0.0000 7.9340 7.9340 005 0.0000 2.2000e- 003 2.2000e- 003 Total 4.3900e- 0.0000 003 0.0445 0.0647

7.9340 7.9340 2.5700e003 0.0000 7.9981

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.3900e003 0.0445 0.0647 9.0000e- 005 2.2000e- 003 2.2000e- 003 2.0200e- 003 2.0200e-003 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.3 Site Preparation (Site-Wide) - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

2.2822 2.2822 7.0000e005 3.2000e- 004 2.3778

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.3612
Total 2.2000e004 4.5200e- 003 2.2900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e-003 4.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 2.8000e-004 3.0000e- 005 3.2000e-004 0.0000

0.0000 4.8000e-004 0.0000 4.8000e- 0.0000 1.3000e-004 0.0000 0.3581 0.3581 004
Worker 1.5000e- 1.3000e-004
004

1.0000e004 1.2500e- 003
Appendix
A Page 26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

2.5700e003 0.0000 7.9981
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

2.0200e003 9.0000e- 2.0200e-003 0.0000 7.9340 7.9340 005 0.0000 2.2000e- 003 2.2000e- 003 Total 4.3900e- 0.0000 003 0.0445 0.0647

7.9340 7.9340 2.5700e003 0.0000 7.9981

0.5367 0.5367 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5416

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5416
Total 2.3000e004 1.6000e- 004 1.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.9000e-004 0.0000 6.9000e- 004 1.8000e-004 0.0000 1.9000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 1.9000e-004 0.0000 0.5367 0.5367
005

6.9000e-004 0.0000 6.9000e004 Worker 2.3000e- 1.8000e-004 004 1.6000e- 004 1.9500e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhaust CH4 N2O CO2e
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

1.0600e003 0.0000 3.3117
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

7.3000e004 4.0000e- 7.3000e-004 0.0000 3.2851 3.2851 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 Total 1.7300e- 0.0000 003 0.0174 0.0268

3.2851 3.2851 1.0600e003 0.0000 3.3117

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.7300e003 0.0174 0.0268 4.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 7.3000e- 004 7.3000e-004 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.3 Site Preparation (Site-Wide) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5367 0.5367 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5416

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5416
Total 2.3000e004 1.6000e- 004 1.9500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.9000e-004 0.0000 6.9000e- 004 1.8000e-004 0.0000 1.9000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 1.9000e-004 0.0000 0.5367 0.5367
005

6.9000e-004 0.0000 6.9000e004 Worker 2.3000e- 1.8000e-004 004 1.6000e- 004 1.9500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 28
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.0600e003 0.0000 3.3117
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

7.3000e004 4.0000e- 7.3000e-004 0.0000 3.2851 3.2851 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 004 8.0000e- 004 Total 1.7300e- 0.0000 003 0.0174 0.0268

3.2851 3.2851 1.0600e003 0.0000 3.3117

0.2148 0.2148 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2167

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2167
Total 9.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e-005 0.0000 8.0000e-005 0.0000

0.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 2.9000e- 0.0000 8.0000e-005 0.0000 0.2148 0.2148 004
Worker 9.0000e- 8.0000e-005
005

6.0000e005 7.5000e- 004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Appendix
A Page 29
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0106 0.0000 33.1727
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7000e- 0.0103 0.0805 0.0000 32.9066 32.9066
004
Total 0.0250 0.2730 0.1441 0.1452 0.0112 0.1564 0.0702

32.9066 32.9066 0.0106 0.0000 33.1727

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0250 0.2730 0.1441 3.7000e004 0.0112 0.0112 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.1452 0.0000 0.1452 0.0702 0.0000 0.0702 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.4 Grading (Site-Wide) - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.2148 0.2148 1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2167

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2167
Total 9.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e-005 0.0000 8.0000e-005 0.0000

0.0000 2.9000e-004 0.0000 2.9000e- 0.0000 8.0000e-005 0.0000 0.2148 0.2148 004
Worker 9.0000e- 8.0000e-005
005

6.0000e005 7.5000e- 004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Appendix
A Page 30
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7000e- 0.0103 0.0419 0.0000 32.9066 32.9066 0.0106 0.0000 33.1727 004
Total 0.0250 0.2730 0.1441 0.0653 0.0112 0.0766 0.0316

32.9066 32.9066 0.0106 0.0000 33.1727

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0250 0.2730 0.1441 3.7000e004 0.0112 0.0112 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 Fugitive Dust 0.0653 0.0000 0.0653 0.0316 0.0000 0.0316 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.0117 1.0117 3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 1.0209

3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 1.0209
Total 4.3000e004 2.9000e- 004 3.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3000e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 3.5000e-004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 3.5000e-004 0.0000 1.0117 1.0117 005 1.3000e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 Worker 4.3000e- 3.5000e-004 004 2.9000e- 004 3.6800e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Appendix
A Page 31
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4000e003 2.4600e- 0.0000 10.5991 003 1.2000e- 2.4600e-003 0.0000 10.5141 10.5141 004 2.6800e- 003 2.6800e- 003 Total 6.2900e- 003 0.0535 0.0766

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.4000e003 0.0000 10.5991
Paving 8.7000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4600e003 1.2000e- 2.4600e-003 0.0000 10.5141 10.5141 004 2.6800e- 003 2.6800e- 003 Off-Road 5.4200e- 003 0.0535 0.0766 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.5 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) - 2023
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

1.0117 1.0117 3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 1.0209

3.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 1.0209
Total 4.3000e004 2.9000e- 004 3.6800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.3000e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 3.5000e-004 1.0000e- 005 3.5000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 1.0000e- 3.5000e-004 0.0000 1.0117 1.0117 005 1.3000e-003 1.0000e- 005 1.3100e- 003 Worker 4.3000e- 3.5000e-004 004 2.9000e- 004 3.6800e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 32
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4000e003 2.4600e- 0.0000 10.5991 003 1.2000e- 2.4600e-003 0.0000 10.5141 10.5141 004 2.6800e- 003 2.6800e- 003 Total 6.2900e- 003 0.0535 0.0766

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.4000e003 0.0000 10.5991
Paving 8.7000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.4600e003 1.2000e- 2.4600e-003 0.0000 10.5141 10.5141 004 2.6800e- 003 2.6800e- 003 Off-Road 5.4200e- 003 0.0535 0.0766 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5182 0.5182 2.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.5229

2.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.5229
Total 2.2000e004 1.5000e- 004 1.8800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e-004 0.0000 6.7000e- 004 1.8000e-004 0.0000 1.8000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 1.8000e-004 0.0000 0.5182 0.5182
005

6.7000e-004 0.0000 6.7000e004 Worker 2.2000e- 1.8000e-004 004 1.5000e- 004 1.8800e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 33
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.8900e003 2.5900e- 0.0000 12.1131 003 1.4000e- 2.5900e-003 0.0000 12.0159 12.0159 004 2.8100e- 003 2.8100e- 003 Total 6.9300e- 003 0.0572 0.0878

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.8900e003 0.0000 12.1131
Paving 1.0000e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.5900e003 1.4000e- 2.5900e-003 0.0000 12.0159 12.0159 004 2.8100e- 003 2.8100e- 003 Off-Road 5.9300e- 003 0.0572 0.0878 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.5 Paving (Roadways & Foundations) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5182 0.5182 2.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.5229

2.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.5229
Total 2.2000e004 1.5000e- 004 1.8800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.7000e-004 0.0000 6.7000e- 004 1.8000e-004 0.0000 1.8000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 1.8000e-004 0.0000 0.5182 0.5182
005

6.7000e-004 0.0000 6.7000e004 Worker 2.2000e- 1.8000e-004 004 1.5000e- 004 1.8800e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 34
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.8900e003 2.5900e- 0.0000 12.1131 003 1.4000e- 2.5900e-003 0.0000 12.0159 12.0159 004 2.8100e- 003 2.8100e- 003 Total 6.9300e- 003 0.0572 0.0878

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

3.8900e003 0.0000 12.1131
Paving 1.0000e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

2.5900e003 1.4000e- 2.5900e-003 0.0000 12.0159 12.0159 004 2.8100e- 003 2.8100e- 003 Off-Road 5.9300e- 003 0.0572 0.0878 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5729 0.5729 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5779

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5779
Total 2.3000e004 1.5000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e-004 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000 0.5729 0.5729
005

7.6000e-004 0.0000 7.7000e004 Worker 2.3000e- 2.0000e-004 004 1.5000e- 004 2.0100e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 35
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.9131 6.9131 1.4400e003 0.0000 6.9490

1.4400e003 0.0000 6.9490
Total 3.9800e003 0.0388 0.0416 8.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 1.7400e- 003 1.6400e- 003 1.6400e-003 0.0000

1.6400e003 8.0000e- 1.6400e-003 0.0000 6.9131 6.9131 005 1.7400e- 003 1.7400e- 003 Off-Road 3.9800e- 003 0.0388 0.0416 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.6 Building Construction (Model Homes) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5729 0.5729 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5779

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.5779
Total 2.3000e004 1.5000e- 004 2.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e-004 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 2.1000e-004 0.0000 0.5729 0.5729
005

7.6000e-004 0.0000 7.7000e004 Worker 2.3000e- 2.0000e-004 004 1.5000e- 004 2.0100e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 36
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.9131 6.9131 1.4400e003 0.0000 6.9490

1.4400e003 0.0000 6.9490
Total 3.9800e003 0.0388 0.0416 8.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 1.7400e- 003 1.6400e- 003 1.6400e-003 0.0000

1.6400e003 8.0000e- 1.6400e-003 0.0000 6.9131 6.9131 005 1.7400e- 003 1.7400e- 003 Off-Road 3.9800e- 003 0.0388 0.0416 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.4290 3.4290 8.0000e005 3.1000e- 004 3.5243

4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 1.5652
Total 7.4000e004 4.6600e- 003 6.7800e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.6900e-003 4.0000e- 005 2.7200e- 003 7.3000e-004 3.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 2.0000e- 5.6000e-004 0.0000 1.5516 1.5516 005 2.0600e-003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 Worker 6.3000e- 5.5000e-004 004 4.2000e- 004 5.4300e- 003

1.8774 1.8774 4.0000e005 2.7000e- 004 1.9591

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.1000e004 4.2400e- 003 1.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 6.3000e-004 3.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 1.8000e-004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-004 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 37
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e005 0.0000 1.2784

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.0000e004 6.0900e- 003 9.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e-004 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.0138 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.7 Architectural Coating (Pavement & Model Homes) - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

3.4290 3.4290 8.0000e005 3.1000e- 004 3.5243

4.0000e005 4.0000e- 005 1.5652
Total 7.4000e004 4.6600e- 003 6.7800e- 003 4.0000e- 005 2.6900e-003 4.0000e- 005 2.7200e- 003 7.3000e-004 3.0000e- 005 7.6000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 2.0000e- 5.6000e-004 0.0000 1.5516 1.5516 005 2.0600e-003 1.0000e- 005 2.0700e- 003 Worker 6.3000e- 5.5000e-004 004 4.2000e- 004 5.4300e- 003

1.8774 1.8774 4.0000e005 2.7000e- 004 1.9591

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.1000e004 4.2400e- 003 1.3500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 6.3000e-004 3.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 1.8000e-004 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-004 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 38
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Archit. Coating 0.0138 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5968 0.5968 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6020

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6020
Total 2.4000e004 1.6000e- 004 2.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4800e-003 0.0000 1.4800e- 003 3.8000e-004 0.0000 3.8000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 3.8000e-004 0.0000 0.5968 0.5968
005

1.4800e-003 0.0000 1.4800e003 Worker 2.4000e- 3.8000e-004 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0900e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.0000e005 0.0000 1.2784
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.0000e004 1.0000e- 3.0000e-004 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 Total 0.0147 6.0900e- 003 9.0500e- 003 Appendix
A Page 39
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.8 Building Construction (Pre-Receptors) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.5968 0.5968 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6020

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6020
Total 2.4000e004 1.6000e- 004 2.0900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4800e-003 0.0000 1.4800e- 003 3.8000e-004 0.0000 3.8000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 3.8000e-004 0.0000 0.5968 0.5968
005

1.4800e-003 0.0000 1.4800e003 Worker 2.4000e- 3.8000e-004 004 1.6000e- 004 2.0900e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.0000e005 0.0000 1.2784
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.0000e004 1.0000e- 3.0000e-004 0.0000 1.2766 1.2766 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 Total 0.0147 6.0900e- 003 9.0500e- 003

1.2766 1.2766 7.0000e005 Off-Road 9.0000e- 0.0000 1.2784 004 6.0900e- 003 9.0500e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 004 3.0000e-004 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 40
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

30.5180 30.5180 7.3000e004 2.7900e- 003 31.3666

3.9000e004 3.8000e- 004 13.9306
Total 6.5900e003 0.0414 0.0604 3.2000e- 004 0.0239 3.1000e- 004 0.0242 6.4900e-003 2.9000e- 004 6.7800e-003 0.0000

8.0000e005 1.5000e- 4.9600e-003 0.0000 13.8088 13.8088 004 0.0184 9.0000e- 005 Worker 5.6500e- 0.0184 4.8800e-003 003 3.7000e- 003 0.0483

16.7092 16.7092 3.4000e004 2.4100e- 003 17.4361

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 9.4000e004 0.0377 0.0120 1.7000e- 004 5.5600e-003 2.2000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 1.6100e-003 2.1000e- 004 1.8200e-003 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

61.5262 61.5262 0.0128 0.0000 61.8457

0.0128 0.0000 61.8457
Total 0.0354 0.3454 0.3699 7.1000e004 0.0155 0.0155 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000

7.1000e- 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000 61.5262 61.5262
004
Off-Road 0.0354 0.3454 0.3699 0.0155 0.0155
Appendix
A Page 41
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.9 Architectural Coating (Pre-Receptors) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

30.5180 30.5180 7.3000e004 2.7900e- 003 31.3666

3.9000e004 3.8000e- 004 13.9306
Total 6.5900e003 0.0414 0.0604 3.2000e- 004 0.0239 3.1000e- 004 0.0242 6.4900e-003 2.9000e- 004 6.7800e-003 0.0000

8.0000e005 1.5000e- 4.9600e-003 0.0000 13.8088 13.8088 004 0.0184 9.0000e- 005 Worker 5.6500e- 0.0184 4.8800e-003 003 3.7000e- 003 0.0483

16.7092 16.7092 3.4000e004 2.4100e- 003 17.4361

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 9.4000e004 0.0377 0.0120 1.7000e- 004 5.5600e-003 2.2000e- 004 5.7900e- 003 1.6100e-003 2.1000e- 004 1.8200e-003 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

61.5261 61.5261 0.0128 0.0000 61.8457

0.0128 0.0000 61.8457
Total 0.0354 0.3454 0.3699 7.1000e004 0.0155 0.0155 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000

7.1000e- 0.0146 0.0146 0.0000 61.5261 61.5261
004
Off-Road 0.0354 0.3454 0.3699 0.0155 0.0155
Appendix
A Page 42
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

2.3572 2.3572 7.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 2.3780

7.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 2.3780
Total 9.6000e004 6.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e-003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e-004 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 3.0000e- 8.5000e-004 0.0000 2.3572 2.3572 005 3.1300e-003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 Worker 9.6000e- 8.3000e-004 004 6.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.7000e004 0.0000 10.0996
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

2.4100e003 1.2000e- 2.4100e-003 0.0000 10.0854 10.0854 004 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 Total 0.2766 0.0481 0.0715

10.0854 10.0854 5.7000e004 0.0000 10.0996

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.1400e003 0.0481 0.0715 1.2000e- 004 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e-003 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.2694 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 43
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

2.3572 2.3572 7.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 2.3780

7.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 2.3780
Total 9.6000e004 6.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003 3.0000e- 005 3.1300e-003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e-004 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e005 3.0000e- 8.5000e-004 0.0000 2.3572 2.3572 005 3.1300e-003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 Worker 9.6000e- 8.3000e-004 004 6.3000e- 004 8.2500e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.7000e004 0.0000 10.0995
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

2.4100e003 1.2000e- 2.4100e-003 0.0000 10.0853 10.0853 004 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 Total 0.2766 0.0481 0.0715

10.0853 10.0853 5.7000e004 0.0000 10.0995

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 7.1400e003 0.0481 0.0715 1.2000e- 004 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e- 003 2.4100e-003 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.2694 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Appendix
A Page 44
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.4 Fleet Mix
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total
PM10
Appendix
A Page 45
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372

5.0 Energy Detail
Single Family Housing 0.561700 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546

0.001311 0.003372
Parking Lot 0.561700 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372

0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.561700 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 0.000337 0.025847 City Park 0.561700 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Appendix
A Page 46
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Single Family 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
NaturalGas PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 47
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 48
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total

6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Appendix
A Page 49
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Appendix
A Page 50
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
City Park 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Outd
oor Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category t
on
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 51
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
City Park 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Indoor/Outd
oor Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000
Appendix
A Page 52
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ton
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Appendix
A Page 53
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year

0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Appendix
A Page 54
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:32 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (Before New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Appendix
A Page 55
Grading -
Architectural Coating - Note 4Off-road Equipment - Note 2Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Note 2Trips and VMT - Demolition -

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - Note 1Construction Phase - Note 2 CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2024
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
86 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58 Single Family Housing 30.00 Dwelling Unit 3.61 56,350.00 Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors)
Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Appendix
A Page 56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 11.14 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.50 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 45.71 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 35,976.14 0.00tblEnergyUse NT24E 6,155.97 0.00 tblEnergyUse NT24NG 2,615.00 0.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_PesticidesFertilizers 5.152E-08 0 tblEnergyUse LightingElect 1,608.84 0.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 0
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_Degreaser 3.542E-07 0
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 105.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 105.00
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Exterior 38,036.00 24,614.00tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Residential_Interior 114,109.00 73,841.00 Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Note 6
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Area Coating - Note 5Landscape Equipment - Note 5Energy Use - Note 5Water And Wastewater - Note 5Solid Waste - Note 5Vehicle Trips - Note 5Woodstoves - Note 5Consumer Products - Note 5 Appendix
A Page 57
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

93.1771 93.1771 0.0160 5.6000e004 93.7443

0.0160 5.6000e004 93.7443
Maximum 0.3098 0.4796 0.5479 1.0700e003 6.4500e-003 0.0215 0.0280 1.7400e-003 0.0205 0.0223 0.0000

1.0700e- 0.0205 0.0223 0.0000 93.1771 93.1771
003
2024 0.3098 0.4796 0.5479 6.4500e-003 0.0215 0.0280 1.7400e-003 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 956.80 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 1,232,260.92 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 21.06 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 0.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,954,620.77 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.54 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.55 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 36.12 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 54,000.00 56,350.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 9.74 3.61 tblLandscapeEquipment NumberSummerDays 180 0
Appendix
A Page 58
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest 0.4939 0.4939
2 9-6-2024 9-30-2024 0.1342 0.13421 6-6-2024 9-5-2024 0.4939 0.4939

0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2

93.1770 93.1770 0.0160 5.6000e004 93.7442

0.0160 5.6000e004 93.7442
Maximum 0.3098 0.4796 0.5479 1.0700e003 6.4500e-003 0.0215 0.0280 1.7400e-003 0.0205 0.0223 0.0000

1.0700e- 0.0205 0.0223 0.0000 93.1770 93.1770
003
2024 0.3098 0.4796 0.5479 6.4500e-003 0.0215 0.0280 1.7400e-003 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 59
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Area 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Appendix
A Page 60
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.45 Architectural Coating (Post-Receptors) Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48Building Construction (Post-Receptors) Welders 0 8.00 46

0.74 Building Construction (Post-Receptors) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction (Post-Receptors) Generator Sets 1 8.00 84

0.29 Building Construction (Post-Receptors) Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction (Post-Receptors) Cranes 1 7.00 231 Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 73,841; Residential Outdoor: 24,614; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor 5 105
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
2 Architectural Coating (PostReceptors) Architectural Coating 6/6/2024 10/30/2024 Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Building Construction (PostReceptors) Building Construction 6/6/2024 10/30/2024 5 105 Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date

0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2
Appendix
A Page 61
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

72.5871 72.5871 0.0151 0.0000 72.9641

0.0151 0.0000 72.9641
Total 0.0418 0.4075 0.4364 8.3000e004 0.0182 0.0182 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000

8.3000e- 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 72.5871 72.5871
004
Off-Road 0.0418 0.4075 0.4364 0.0182 0.0182
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Building Construction (Post-Receptors) - 2024
Architectural Coating 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix
(Post-Receptors)
1 2.00 0.00 0.00
Vendor Vehicle
Class
Hauling Vehicle
Class
Building Construction
(Post-Receptors)
4 11.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Appendix
A Page 62
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

72.5870 72.5870 0.0151 0.0000 72.9640

0.0151 0.0000 72.9640
Total 0.0418 0.4075 0.4364 8.3000e004 0.0182 0.0182 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000

8.3000e- 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 72.5870 72.5870
004
Off-Road 0.0418 0.4075 0.4364 0.0182 0.0182
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

6.5588 6.5588 1.6000e004 5.4000e- 004 6.7246

1.0000e004 9.0000e- 005 3.4766
Total 1.5900e003 7.9400e- 003 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 5.6200e-003 6.0000e- 005 5.6800e- 003 1.5200e-003 6.0000e- 005 1.5800e-003 0.0000

2.0000e005 4.0000e- 1.2400e-003 0.0000 3.4462 3.4462 005 4.5800e-003 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 003 Worker 1.4100e- 1.2200e-003 003 9.2000e- 004 0.0121

3.1126 3.1126 6.0000e005 4.5000e- 004 3.2480

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.8000e004 7.0200e- 003 2.2400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0400e-003 4.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 3.0000e-004 4.0000e- 005 3.4000e-004 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Appendix
A Page 63
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.5000e004 0.0000 13.4235
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.2000e003 1.6000e- 3.2000e-003 0.0000 13.4046 13.4046 004 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 Total 0.2662 0.0640 0.0950

13.4046 13.4046 7.5000e004 0.0000 13.4235

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 9.4900e003 0.0640 0.0950 1.6000e- 004 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e-003 0.0000 Archit. Coating 0.2567 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

3.3 Architectural Coating (Post-Receptors) - 2024
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

6.5588 6.5588 1.6000e004 5.4000e- 004 6.7246

1.0000e004 9.0000e- 005 3.4766
Total 1.5900e003 7.9400e- 003 0.0143 7.0000e- 005 5.6200e-003 6.0000e- 005 5.6800e- 003 1.5200e-003 6.0000e- 005 1.5800e-003 0.0000

2.0000e005 4.0000e- 1.2400e-003 0.0000 3.4462 3.4462 005 4.5800e-003 2.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 003 Worker 1.4100e- 1.2200e-003 003 9.2000e- 004 0.0121

3.1126 3.1126 6.0000e005 4.5000e- 004 3.2480

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.8000e004 7.0200e- 003 2.2400e- 003 3.0000e- 005 1.0400e-003 4.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 3.0000e-004 4.0000e- 005 3.4000e-004 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr MT/yr
Appendix
A Page 64
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.5000e004 0.0000 13.4234
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.2000e003 1.6000e- 3.2000e-003 0.0000 13.4046 13.4046 004 3.2000e- 003 3.2000e- 003 Total 0.2662 0.0640 0.0950

13.4046 13.4046 7.5000e004 0.0000 13.4234

0.6266 0.6266 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6321

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6321
Total 2.6000e004 1.7000e- 004 2.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e-004 0.0000 8.4000e- 004 2.2000e-004 0.0000 2.3000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3000e-004 0.0000 0.6266 0.6266
005

8.3000e-004 0.0000 8.4000e004 Worker 2.6000e- 2.2000e-004 004 1.7000e- 004 2.1900e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Appendix
A Page 65
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

0.6266 0.6266 2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6321

2.0000e005 2.0000e- 005 0.6321
Total 2.6000e004 1.7000e- 004 2.1900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.3000e-004 0.0000 8.4000e- 004 2.2000e-004 0.0000 2.3000e-004 0.0000

1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3000e-004 0.0000 0.6266 0.6266
005

8.3000e-004 0.0000 8.4000e004 Worker 2.6000e- 2.2000e-004 004 1.7000e- 004 2.1900e- 003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Appendix
A Page 66
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372

5.0 Energy Detail
Single Family Housing 0.561700 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Appendix
A Page 67
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGas
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 68
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use kWh/yr t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Single Family 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000
Appendix
A Page 69
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated

0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Appendix
A Page 70
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0000
CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Appendix
A Page 71
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Total 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Outd
oor Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
Category t
on
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O
Appendix
A Page 72
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
CO2e
ton
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O

0.0000 0.0000

8.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Indoor/Outd
oor Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Appendix
A Page 73
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

0.0000 0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day
Total 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use tons t
on
MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Appendix
A Page 74
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/12/2022 1:35 PM
Skelly Rd Construction (After New Receptors) - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation
Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year
Appendix
A Page 75
Construction Phase - Note 5
Off-road Equipment - Note 5Trips and VMT - Note 5Demolition - Grading - N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.004

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Note 1Land Use - Note 1
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 203.98 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.033
Precipitation Freq (Days) 58
Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2024

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2
0 Single Family Housing 40 Dwelling Unit 4.86 74,740.00 114 City Park 0.45 Acre 0.45 19,602.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0 Parking Lot 62.32 1000sqft 1.43 62,320.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.08 Acre 0.08 3,430.00
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation
Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Appendix
A Page 76
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 0.78 0
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 2.19 0tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.55 9.43tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.96 0tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.54 9.43 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1 0
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 10 0
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 72,000.00 74,740.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.99 4.86
tblFireplaces NumberWood 17.2 0
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,484.80 3,430.00
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20 0
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Note 9Energy Mitigation - Note 10Fleet Mix - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Woodstoves - Note 9Area Coating - Energy Use - Water And Wastewater - Solid Waste - Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - Note 5, Note 8Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Appendix
A Page 77
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0000 0
000
Maximum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
0000 0
000
Maximum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2022 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.44 9.43
Appendix
A Page 78
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Mitigated Operational
394.1078 406.7118 0.6952 0.0176 429.3326

0.0853 2.04E-03 5.5777
Total 0.5386 0.2544 1.8867 3.78E-03 0.3223 0.0251 0.3474 0.0861 0.0249 0.111 12.604 Water 00 0 0 0.8268 2.0105 2.8373
0 9.7273 0.5749 0 24.099

0.0184 0.0134 281.518
Waste 0 0 0 0 9.7273Mobile 0.1605 0.1772 1.4647 3.00E-03 0.3223 2.26E-03 0.3246 0.0861 2.10E-03 0.0882 0 277.0634 277.0634 113.2993 113.2993 6.58E-03 2.12E-03 114.0946

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Highest
000
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0000000000000
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2
Appendix
A Page 79
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0Acres of Paving: 1.51 Residential Indoor: 151,349; Residential Outdoor: 50,450; Non-Residential Indoor: 2; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1; Striped Parking Area: 3,945 Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/23/2022 3/22/2022 5 0 Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date

0.17 0.85 1.7

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0 00000 0 0 000 1.84 1.78
PM2.5
Total
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO SO2
386.8725 399.4765 0.6941 0.0174 422.0257

0.0853 2.04E-03 5.5777
Total 0.5386 0.2544 1.8867 3.78E-03 0.3223 0.0251 0.3474 0.0861 0.0249 0.111 12.604 Water 00 0 0 0.8268 2.0105 2.8373
0 9.7273 0.5749 0 24.099

0.0184 0.0134 281.518
Waste 0 0 0 0 9.7273
Mobile 0.1605 0.1772 1.4647 3.00E-03 0.3223 2.26E-03 0.3246 0.0861 2.10E-03 0.0882 0 277.0634 277.0634 106.0639 106.0639 5.41E-03 1.97E-03 106.7877

0.0101 2.00E-05 4.0432
Energy 8.32E-03 0.0711 0.0303 4.50E-04 5.75E-03 5.75E-03 5.75E-03 5.75E-03 0 Area 0.3698 6.03E-03 0.3918 3.30E-04 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 2.0499 1.7347 3.7845 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Appendix
A Page 80
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000 000
0000 0
000
Off-Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Archit. Coating 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor Vehicle
Class
Hauling Vehicle
Class
Architectural Coating 0 0 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 6 78 0.48
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power OffRoad Equipment
Appendix
A Page 81
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000 000
0000 0
000
Off-Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Archit. Coating 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
0000 0
000
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
0000 0
000
Vendor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hauling 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 82
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
0000 0
000
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Worker 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
0000 0
000
Vendor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hauling 0 0 0 00000 0 0 000
CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM2.5
SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10 Total Fugitive
PM2.5
ROG NOx CO
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
Appendix
A Page 83
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372

5.0 Energy Detail
Single Family Housing 0.5617 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546

0.001311 0.003372
Parking Lot 0.5617 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372

0.000337 0.025847 0.001311 0.003372
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.5617 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 0.000337 0.025847 City Park 0.5617 0.056037 0.179622 0.127612 0.023848 0.005501 0.007131 0.007135 0.000546 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
871,184
Total 377.20 377.20 377.20 871,184 871,184
Single Family Housing 377.20 377.20 377.20 871,184
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual VMT
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

0.0184 0.0134 281.518

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
281.518
Unmitigated 0.1605 0.1772 1.4647 3.00E-03 0.3223 2.26E-03 0.3246 0.0861 2.10E-03 0.0882 0 277.0634 277.0634 Mitigated 0.1605 0.1772 1.4647 3.00E-03 0.3223 2.26E-03 0.3246 0.0861 2.10E-03 0.0882 0 277.0634 277.0634 0.0184 0.0134 Appendix
A Page 84
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1
Date: 4/11/2022 1:42 PM
215 Skelly Hercules Residential Project 2024 Operation - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied City Park 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 0000
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
CO SO2 Fugitive PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
NaturalGas PM10 Total
Use
ROG NOx

Hercules City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Hercules City Council
September 27, 2022