Livermore City Council
May 22, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx Figure 1 – Project Location
(SLVSP Page 12-13)
Consistent with the SLVSP, Site 5D2 includes a 25-foot right-of-way easement for a regional trail corridor along the eastern edge of the parcel abutting the Arroyo Road right-of-way. The regional trail contains a 10-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle path and an 8-foot-wide equestrian path separated by a 3-foot-wide planted area. See Figure 2 – Standard Trail Right-of-Way Section below. The 25-foot right-of-way easement for the regional trail lies entirely within the proposed site and is identified on Sheet 1 of the project’s Entitlement Plans as “EX 25’ TRAIL EASEMENT (DN 2002-1077899)”.

ATTACHMENT 15
986
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx Figure 2 – Standard Trail Right-of-Way Section
(SLVSP Page 5-43)
Orientation Note: Section as viewed while traveling south along Arroyo Road. Arroyo Road would be left of the 10-foot-wide paved pedestrian and bicycle path while the project site would be to the right of the 8-foot-wide equestrian path.

Arroyo Road is classified as a collector street and provides regional access to Lake Del Valle to the south. To the north, Arroyo Road turns into L Street and connects to Downtown Livermore.

Generally speaking, Arroyo Road is a two-lane road with periodic center landscape medians, rightturn pockets, left-turn pockets, regional trail and sidewalk. The roadway also consists of a striped and signed bike lanes in each direction.

Immediately adjacent to the project site, Arroyo Road consists of a two-lane road with center landscape median and bike lanes in each direction. As Arroyo Road approaches Hansen Road in the northbound direction and approximately 225-feet south of the intersection, the center median terminates and makes way for a left-turn pocket. Additionally, the roadway widens for a rightturn pocket.

Hansen Road immediately adjacent to the project site was constructed in 2007 with the residential communities to the northwest. The roadway is classified as a “rural collector” consisting of an 82- foot-wide right-of-way, a single lane in each direction, a center landscape median nearest Arroyo Road and a 10-foot-wide sidewalk on the north side. The existing roadway is generally consistent with the Rural Residential Street sections proposed in the SLVSP, see Figure 3 – Rural Residential Street Sections below. Currently, the existing roadway does not include sidewalk along the proposed project’s frontage (southern side of the roadway) or a signed and striped bike lane.

ATTACHMENT 15
987
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx Figure 3 – Rural Residential Street Sections
(Figure 5.4 of the SLVSP, Page 5-13)
ATTACHMENT 15
988
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx

HANSEN ROAD FRONTAGE
The proposed Section B-B depicted on Sheet C3 – “Preliminary Grading Plan”, between “Drive Aisle A” and Hansen Road was originally proposed to help achieve the following: (1) maintain the existing swale or roadside drainage ditch, (2) vertically separate the proposed sidewalk at least 6-inches above the existing flush curb to prevent flooding the sidewalk and to promote pedestrian safety, (3) create a “level area” (2% maximum cross slope) across the sidewalk area consistent with City standards and general engineering practice, and (4) to achieve the frontage improvement requirements of the Rural Collector Street – Cross -Section between the existing street and project boundary. Section B-B below depicts the original proposed interface between Hansen Road and the LWCI project.

Section B-B from Entitlement Drawing Sheet C3 – Preliminary Grading Plan, dated August 16, 2019
Subsequent to the administrative public hearings, the proposed sidewalk depicted along Hansen Road as a part of the project’s entitlement drawings dated August 16, 2019, was eliminated based on requests provided by Commissioner Stein at the November 5, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting. The intent of Commissioner Stein’s request was to preserve the existing trees within the City’s public right-of-way. During the January 13, 2020, City Council Meeting, City Staff made the following recommendation to Council:

ATTACHMENT 15
989
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx City Council Agenda Item 5.01, Attachment 6, Page 15
To satisfy Commissioner Stein’s request and Staffs’ recommendations, the interface between Hansen Road and the LWCI project was redesigned to preserve the existing street trees within the public right-of-way. The section below shows the redesigned area between Hansen Road and the LWCI project (Hansen Road on the left, LWCI project on the right). Before concluding that the sidewalk needed to be eliminated to achieve the recommendation, alternatives which included deceased sidewalk widths of 5-feet, alternative surface materials such as asphalt and meandering the sidewalk or path around the trees were studied however all studied alternatives required grading within the right-of-way in close proximity to the existing trees, and in a manner that would likely damage the tree and compromise the long term health of the trees. The City’s right-of-way is the area left of the bold vertical line noted as “RW” in each section. As a result, and consistent with the staff recommendations, the sidewalk or pedestrian path was eliminated, and no grading was proposed within the right-of-way adjacent to the trees. Redesigning the interface between Hansen Road and the LWCI project resulted with a maximum wall height reduction of approximately 0.5- feet from 4.5-feet to 4.0-feet and overall, is a minimal change to the project.

ATTACHMENT 15
990
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx Redesigned Section B-B to achieve Commissioner Stein’s Request The inclusion or exclusion of sidewalk along any street frontage has no relational requirement linked to the location of the project’s vehicular entrance. In other words, moving the project’s vehicular access point from one adjacent street to another does not suggest or imply that the sidewalk also needs to be moved, should be moved, can be moved, or can or should be eliminated.

The vehicular access point is mutually exclusive of the sidewalk as each provide separate modes of transportation for users within the public right-of-way. Regardless of this, the proposed sidewalk was eliminated, and the retaining wall reduced in height, further improving the safety of a vehicular access point along Hansen Road.

Chapter 5.0, “Transportation and Circulation” of the City’s South Livermore Valley Specific Plan states that “Within Subarea #5, a central east-west spine road will extend from Arroyo Road to Wetmore Road (just before it intersects with Vallecitos Road).” The “east-west spine road” characterized in the Specific Plan is presently Hansen Road. The Specific Plan also states that “Vehicular access to commercial sites in Subarea #5 will be from the east-west spine road and Wetmore Road.” The Specific Plan further clarifies the access point to Subarea #5, Parcel 5D2 by stating “The two sites fronting on Arroyo Road will take access from a single access point on the east-west spine road.”
A vehicular access point along Hansen Road is in compliance with the Specific Plan.

ARROYO ROAD FRONTAGE
The 100-foot agricultural setback is measured from the Arroyo Road right-of-way / eastern property line of the LWCI parcel. An existing 25-foot-wide trail easement for the regional trail occupies the eastern-most 25-feet of the 100-foot setback area, therefore only 75-feet of the agricultural setback can be used as slope. The existing elevation at the regional trail easement line at the centerline of the proposed EVA turnaround is 549.0. The elevation at the centerline of the proposed EVA along the western side of the 100-foot setback is currently proposed at ATTACHMENT 15
991
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx approximately 540.0. Community members have also suggested lowering the building pad by approximately 1.0-foot to balance dirt movement and earthwork required to relocate the vehicular access point. As a result, this would lower the elevation at the EVA turnaround by approximately

1.0-foot, therefore the total grade differential between the existing elevation at the trail easement and the elevation of the EVA turnaround is 10.0-feet (549.0 – 540.0 + 1.0 = 10.0). Ignoring all engineering design criteria for roadways and safety, a grade change of 10.0-feet over a distance of 75-feet would result with a slope of 13.3% or 7.5:1. See Section C-C markup below in red.

Grade Change Using Linear Interpolation
Typical roadway design would incorporate required design elements like vertical curves at each end of the “75-foot-long slope area”. Incorporating a very minimal 25-foot vertical curve at each end would cause the slope to increase to 19% (essentially 5:1), see profile below showing slope within “75-foot-long slope area” with minimal 25-foot-long vertical curves. Please note increasing vertical curve lengths only increases the slope between the curves.

Section D103.2 Grade of Appendix D Fire Apparatus Access Roads of the California Fire Code discusses minimum specifications for fire apparatus access roads. Section D103.2 states: “Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approved by the fire code official.” A 19% slope with very minimal vertical curves would likely not be acceptable to the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department. Other design considerations including but not limited to vehicle sight distance, vehicle speeds, median geometry, striping geometry, curb radii, deceleration lanes, proximity to existing intersection and the interface with the regional trail would influence the design of a vehicular access point a Arroyo Road and may further reduce the “75-foot-long slope area” to allow for improved safety into and out of the project site, further increasing the slope from Arroyo Road down to the project site.

ATTACHMENT 15
992
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx Profile showing slope within “75-foot-long” slope area with 25-foot-long vertical curves Changing the project’s vehicular access point will also result with a more difficult and therefore more dangerous turning movement for motorists leaving the project site heading in the northbound direction. As stated above, a connection to Hansen Road consistent with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan vs. Arroyo Road is safer. Jeopardizing the health, safety welfare of the public, LWCI guests and neighbors of the community included, in an effort to deter motorists from using a roadway and to reduce traffic volume along a roadway is not a prudent engineering decision or sound reasoning.

The suggested design changes are also significant in nature to both the LWCI project, and the City of Livermore. As a Civil Engineering Design Professional, we consider the elimination of a sidewalk as discussed above to be minimal. Changing the vehicular access point would effectively cause a redesign of many project features or considerations including but not limited to the rough grading design, drainage, fire water routing, potable water routing, fine grading, fire access, trash access, guest circulation, accessibility, landscape layout, and irrigation routing. It would also require other project studies or reports to be reanalyzed such as a traffic impact study and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as both the project and SLVSP had not previously considered ATTACHMENT 15
993
Livermore Wine Country Inn – Vehicular Access April 20, 2023

\\fscbg\P-Drive\2900 - 2999\2985-000\Letters\TECH MEMO_001.docx vehicular access from Arroyo Road. Direct access from Arroyo Road is in direct conflict with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. We would not characterize the design changes necessary to achieve the community’s suggestions as “minimal”.

Relocating the project’s vehicular access point to Arroyo Road would introduce three (3) pedestrian / vehicle conflict points. The western side of Arroyo Road includes a striped bike lane within the paved street, and multi-use regional trail consisting of a 10-foot-wide paved path for pedestrian and bicycle use and an 8-foot-wide compacted gravel path for equestrian use. The project’s vehicular access along Hansen Road currently has zero pedestrian / vehicular conflict points since the pedestrian path was eliminated prior to project approval and there are no striped bike lanes along Hansen Road. Beyond pedestrian safety, a connection to a two-lane Collector Street (Hansen Road) seems more appropriate vs. connecting to Arroyo Road very near an intersection that is striped with two through lanes, a left-turn pocket and right-turn pocket. Hansen Road is also signed as a 25 MPH roadway while Arroyo Road is signed at 40 MPH. A connection to a roadway with slower speeds will allow guests to access the LWCI project more safely. The vertical grade change between Arroyo Road and the project site also presents challenges. Considering the above information, we struggle to understand any advantage to having a vehicular access point at Arroyo Road or how that would make for a safer access point.

CONCLUSION
As Civil Engineering Design Professionals, we consider the vehicular access point to the LWCI project along Hansen Road as currently proposed to be of greater safety and community benefit to the guests of the LWCI project, residents of the City of Livermore, visitors of the region and all traveling along Arroyo Road and Hansen Road compared to the suggestions presented by the members of the community.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,
Jason D. Vogan, P.E. Kevin G. Lapp, P.E.

Principal Project Manager
RCE 59299 RCE 84929
JDV/KGL:av
ATTACHMENT 15
994

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: May 16, 2023
To: Kam Purewal
From: Joanna (Xiaojia) Liu
Subject: Assessment on the Vehicular Access from Arroyo Road to the Proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn
The City of Livermore staff (Transportation) has assessed the potential vehicular access from Arroyo Road to the Proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn. The findings are illustrated in the figure below.

ATTACHMENT 16
995
Proposed Livermore Wine Country Inn
Assessment on the Vehicular Access from Arroyo Road
May 16, 2023

1. As shown, the project access on Arroyo Road will introduce multiple conflict points with the existing multi-purpose trail and the bike lane along the west side of Arroyo Road within a short distance, which will be a potential safety concern. On the other hand, the proposed project access on Hansen Road does not have such conflict points with pedestrian or bicycle infrastructures.

2. If relocating the project access to Arroyo Road, the left-turn-out movement shall be prohibited due to the following reasons:
a. The line of Sight to the south is blocked by the existing trees. b. Left-turn movement will need to cross one high speed (40 mph) southbound travel lane and one northbound left-turn lane on Arroyo Road.

With such turn restriction and lack of U-Turn point nearby, vehicles going back to North Livermore might need to take residential streets (e.g., Talinga Drive / Hansen Road, etc.). The number of new Wine Country Inn trips taking adjacent residential streets will be similar to that with the proposed project access on Hansen Road.

In addition, the existing northbound left-turn lane will need to be shortened from 150’ to approximately 100’. When the site 5D1 comes in, such 100-foot left-turn storage area might not be sufficient.

3. In addition, if the project access is on Arroyo Road, the driveway will have steep slope, which will not likely meet the minimum specifications for fire apparatus access roads. The existing trail along Arroyo Road would need to be regraded as well.

In conclusion, the current proposal of the project access on Hansen Road is preferable to the entrance on Arroyo Road from the perspective of traffic safety and operation as well as access road design.

In addition to the findings listed above, it conflicts with the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP) if the project access is relocated to Arroyo Road. The SLVSP states that “Vehicular access to commercial sites in Subarea #5 will be from the eastwest spine road and Wetmore Road”, and “The two sites fronting on Arroyo Road will take access from a single access point on the east-west spine road.” The “east-west spine road” referred to here is Hansen Road.

ATTACHMENT 16
996
ATTACHMENT 17

RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ________

IN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE APRIL 2023 ADDENDUM TO THE 1997 SOUTH

LIVERMORE VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1996052025) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Livermore Wine Country Inn

RECITALS
The City of Livermore (“City”) initiated application for Specific Plan Amendment (SPPA) 23-001 and the Developer submitted an application for Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) 23-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 23-002 for the Livermore Wine Country Inn (“Project”).

The City prepared an April 2023 Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

On May 2, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, made the necessary findings, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No.17-23, recommending that the City Council adopt the Livermore Wine Country Inn April 2023 Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025).

On May 22, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project, Planning Commission and staff recommendations, and all public comments and testimony, and findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livermore that prior to taking action on the Project, and at a properly noticed public hearing, the City Council reviewed written and oral staff reports, conducted a public hearing on the Project and took testimony, and received into the record all pertinent documents related to the Project (collectively, the “Record Evidence”). The City Council’s determination is based on the Record Evidence, which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore has considered the findings made in Planning Commission Resolution No.17-23, attached hereto as Exhibit A, adopts those same findings by this reference, and incorporates them as their own findings as part of this resolution. Based upon the City Council’s own independent review of the Record Evidence, the City Council has considered the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025), and determines that no subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required given that substantial project and circumstantial changes have 997
ATTACHMENT 17

RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ________
not occurred and no new information of substantial importance as set forth in CEQA Guidelines 15162 exists, and hereby adopts the April 2023 Addendum to the 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025), attached hereto as Exhibit B, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Livermore directs the Planning Manager to file a Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk, if the project is approved.

The documents that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based can be found in the City Clerk’s Office, 1052 S. Livermore Avenue, in Livermore, California. This resolution shall be effective upon adoption by the City Council.

On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted on May 22, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Kimberly D. Cilley
Marie Weber Kimberly D. Cilley
City Clerk Senior Assistant City Attorney
Exhibit A – Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-23
Exhibit B – Addendum to 1997 South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1996052025)
998
ATTACHMENT 18

EXHIBIT A
999
ATTACHMENT 18

EXHIBIT A
1000
City of Livermore
Community Development Department
Wine Country Inn Project
SLVSP Amendments
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan and Design Review
Addendum
April 2023
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1 B. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2 C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 4 D. SOURCES .................................................................................................................... 15 E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................ 17 F. DETERMINATION......................................................................................................... 18 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................. 19 I. AESTHETICS. ................................................................................................... 21 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. ............................................ 25 III. AIR QUALITY. ................................................................................................... 28 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................. 38 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ............................................................................... 43 VI. ENERGY. .......................................................................................................... 45 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .................................................................................... 49 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ................................................................... 55 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. .................................................... 61 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ............................................................. 65 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ............................................................................ 70 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................. 73 XIII. NOISE. .............................................................................................................. 74 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. ......................................................................... 80 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. .......................................................................................... 82 XVI. RECREATION. .................................................................................................. 85 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. ......................................................................................... 87 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................. 97 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. .............................................................. 99 XX. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................ 103 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ............................................... 105 APPENDICES:

Appendix A: SLVSP Text Amendments
Appendix B: Air Quality and GHG Modeling Results
Appendix C: Summary Biological Report
Appendix D: Geotechnical Exploration
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1002
A. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Wine Country Inn Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Livermore
Community Development Department
1052 S. Livermore Avenue
Livermore, CA 94550

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kam Purewal
Associate Planner
(925) 960-4463

4. Project Location: Southwest corner of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road Livermore, CA 94550
APN 099-0460-008

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Livermore Wine County Inn, LLC 2231 Hampton Road
Livermore, CA 94550

6. General Plan Designation: South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Subarea 5, Vineyard Commercial (SV-VC)

7. Specific Plan Designation: Subarea 5: Commercial: Site 5D1 and 5D2

8. Zoning Designation: Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, Planned Unit Development
Amendment (PUDA) 01-001

9. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None

10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site consists of the approximately 3.2-acre Wine Country Inn site located directly southwest of the intersection of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road in the City of Livermore, California, and identified as Site 5D2 in the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), as well as SLVSP Site 5D1, located north of Site 5D2, across Hansen Road. Currently, the sites are vacant and covered in ruderal vegetation, except for an area along the Arroyo Road frontage that is planted with vineyards. Site 5D2 is bordered by Las Positas Vineyards to the south, Arroyo Road to the east, Hansen Road to the north, and single-family residences to the west, across Hansen Road. The sites are designated Vineyard Commercial (SV-5, SV-VC) by the City’s General Plan, Commercial (Sites 5D1 and 5D2) by the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan (SLVSP), and zoned Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001.

ADDENDUM
APRIL 2023
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1003

11. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of select text amendments to the SLVSP pertaining to setbacks from Hansen Road for sites 5D1 and 5D2, and development-level entitlements for the Wine Country Inn project, referred to as Site 5D2 in the SLVSP. The Wine Country Inn Project would include development of a 29,345-square foot (sf), two-story building for a 30-room Wine Country Inn, 77-seat restaurant, and caretaker’s unit, as well as 65 onsite, parking spaces. A new driveway would be constructed with access from Hansen Road on the northern portion of the project site. In addition, the project would include a monument sign at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hansen Road and Arroyo Road, as well as at the project site entrance. Required City of Livermore approvals include a Conditional Use Permit for the caretaker’s unit, Site Plan and Design Review, and approval of a SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7. The text amendment to revise Policy 4-7 provides consistency with the zoning standards and clarifies that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road for sites 5D1 and subject site (Commercial Site 5D2). The text amendment would allow for development of a Wine Country Inn on site 5D2, as proposed, and provide consistency between the Specific Plan and underlying zoning standards. The text amendment is consistent with the General Plan’s Goals and Objectives of enhancing the South Livermore Valley as a unique wine-producing region serving wine country visitors. Other sections of the Specific Plan are amended to be consistent with the revisions made to Policy 4-7. All of the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan are set forth in Appendix A.

B. INTRODUCTION
This Addendum identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

The SLVSP was adopted on November 17, 1997 to provide a framework to guide future land uses, in conjunction with the City’s General Plan, within the 1,891-acre planning area located in the South Livermore Valley.1
The SLVSP constituted a “project” under CEQA, and thus, an EIR was prepared for the Specific Plan in May 1997.2
The EIR addressed the development of the
South Livermore Valley planning area as a single project, although the area consists of several distinct and noncontiguous subareas. The approach enabled the City to comprehensively evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to expedite the processing of future projects that are consistent with the Plan and evaluate proposed projects for consistency with the intent of plan policies and for conformance with development standards and design guidelines.

The SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. According to the Specific Plan, the maximum allowable floor to area ratio (FAR) is 0.25. The SLVSP includes a diagram for a commercial development scenario, a “wine country inn and restaurant” on Site 5D2.
1 City of Livermore. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. November 17, 1997; Amended February 2004. 2 City of Livermore. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. May 1997.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1004
In addition, the site immediately north of the project site (Commercial Site 5D1) is designated for the development of an approximately 25,000-sf wine country commercial center. The purpose of the commercial center would be to provide retail uses that directly support the concept of the South Livermore Valley as a wine-country destination, and provide necessary services to visitors to the wine country. For example, uses might include a small grocery/deli where visitors could buy picnic supplies, an art gallery specializing in local artists and themes, or a bike rental shop that would allow visitors to tour the Valley on bike. While the proposed SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7 to clarify that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road would apply to both the Wine Country Inn project site (e.g., Site 5D2) and Site 5D1, no specific development proposal has been offered yet for Site 5D1. According to the CEQA Guidelines, the Addendum need not, because it cannot, analyze the impacts of the SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7 at Site 5D1 at the same level of detail that can occur with respect to Site 5D2, because only at Site 5D2 is there a detailed project proposal before the lead agency for consideration. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 states that the degree of specificity required for environmental analysis “will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity.” This Addendum considers the effects of adopting the proposed SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7 and does not anticipate that adoption of the Text Amendment would foreseeably alter likely future development of Site 5D1 in any environmentally significant way as compared to the analysis in the SLVSP EIR. The analysis included within this Addendum also demonstrates that there are no “changed circumstances” requiring the revisitation of the SLVSP EIR.

In the case of a project proposal requiring discretionary approval by the City for which the City has previously certified an EIR for the overall project, the City must determine whether a subsequent EIR is required.3
The CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in this process by requiring an examination of whether, since the certification of the EIR, changes in the approved project or circumstances under which the approved project would be undertaken have occurred to such an extent that the proposal may result in a new significant impact (not previously identified in the certified EIR) or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. If so, the City would be required to prepare a subsequent EIR. The examination of impacts is the first step taken by the City in reviewing the project in compliance with CEQA. The following review considers the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as discussed in detail below.

For the purposes of this Addendum, the environmental evaluation of the proposed project will be based, generally, on the Appendix G checklist format. Modifications have been made to the checklist sections, generally consisting of additional questions that consider the potential for new or changed significant impacts consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to an adopted EIR may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are required, and none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162(a):
3 The City of Livermore previously prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project, which was adopted by Livermore City Council. Following the City Council’s approval of the project, an unincorporated association calling itself the “Friends of South Livermore” filed a lawsuit against the City arguing that the project violated the setback requirements of the SLVSP, among other claims. The Alameda County Superior Court denied the petition; however, in 2022, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the project’s 50- foot setback from Hansen Road conflicts with the 100-foot setback required by Policy 4-7 of the SLVSP. As a result of the ruling, the City will rescind its approval of the project entitlements. In preparation of bringing this matter back to the decision-makers with an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow for the necessary 50-foot setback from Hansen Road, the City has determined that it is appropriate to review this project under the subsequent review provisions of CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, section 21166; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164) given that the SLVSP EIR still retains informational value and the SLVSP EIR previously evaluated the development of the project site (Commercial Site 5D2) for a 30-room inn and 100-seat restaurant based on a prototypical site plan (SLVSP, pg. 12-13).

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1005

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR [or negative declaration];
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The following checklist analysis documents the City’s consideration of potential new or more severe significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The determination in this document is that the project’s potential impacts were adequately addressed in a previous CEQA document (i.e., the SLVSP EIR) that was certified by the City of Livermore, which remains relevant, and the conditions set forth in Section 15162 are not triggered by the proposed project. As such, an addendum is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
For purposes of CEQA, the proposed project consists of the entirety of discretionary actions that the City will be considering, which generally include select text amendments to the SLVSP pertaining to setbacks from Hansen Road for sites 5D1 and 5D2, and development-level entitlements for the Wine Country Inn project, referred to as Site 5D2 in the SLVSP. The following provides a description of the project site’s current location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project.

Project Location and Setting
The project site, for purposes of the requested amendment to Policy 4-7 of the SLVSP, consists of both Site 5D1 and Site 5D2; however, only Site 5D2 is being considered for a specific development proposal.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1006
Site 5D2 is a 3.2-acre parcel (APN 099-0460-008) located directly southwest of the intersection of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road in the City of Livermore, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The site is designated Vineyard Commercial (SV5, SV-VC) by the City’s General Plan, Commercial (Site 5D2) by the SLVSP, and zoned Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001.

Site 5D1 is located directly northwest of the intersection of Arroyo Road and Hansen Road in the City of Livermore, California. The site is also designated Vineyard Commercial (SV5, SV-VC) by the City’s General Plan, Commercial (Site 5D1) by the SLVSP, and zoned Planned DevelopmentSouth Livermore Valley Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001. Site 5D1 is undeveloped and contains planted grape vines along Arroyo Road.

The Wine Country Inn project site is located within Subarea 5 and is identified as Site 5D2, Wine Country Inn and Restaurant, within the SLVSP (see Figure 3). Currently, the western portion of the project site is vacant and undeveloped, consisting primarily of ruderal grasses with a small number of shrubs scattered along the northern site boundary.

The eastern portion of the site contains approximately six rows of grape vines and a public access trail which runs through the project site along Arroyo Road. Ornamental street trees line the project site along Hansen Road and a fence surrounds the entire site. The project site is bordered by the Las Positas Vineyards to the south and west, Hansen Road to the north, and Arroyo Road to the east.

Land uses in the surrounding area include single-family residences to the west and northwest, across Hansen Road, and primarily agricultural land in all other directions. A small dirt path on the northwestern portion of the project site currently extends from Hansen Road onto the site. A public multi-use trail is located along the Arroyo Road frontage.

The site currently contains two public utility easements at the north end of the property and along the eastern border. A storm drain easement also exists in the southeast corner of the project site.

Project Components
The proposed Wine Country Inn project is the development and operation of Site 5D2 with a 29,345-sf, two-story building for a 30-room Wine Country Inn. Development of the project would also include a 77-seat restaurant, caretaker’s unit, 65 vehicle parking spaces, 12 bicycle parking spaces, and associated improvements (see Figure 4).

The inn would include 18 standard rooms with one king-size bed, two suite-style rooms with one king-size bed, seven standard rooms with two queen-size beds, and three American Disability Act (ADA)-compliant suites with one king-size bed. Each room would have a private bathroom.

Additionally, both the first and second floors would include 6,722 sf of outdoor deck space for use by guests; however, outdoor events would not be held at the inn. Consistent with the applicant’s proposal, the City will condition the project to prohibit any outdoor events.

The main floor of the inn would include a lobby with a bar and reception area, a lounge area with outdoor seating, a manager’s office, 15 guest rooms, a kitchen and restaurant, and a caretaker’s unit. Additionally, an outdoor pool and spa area would be located along the south end of the building. The project would also include an on-site garden box to grow produce for use in the kitchen. The second floor of the inn would include a conference room for the primary use of guests staying at the inn, storage rooms, and 15 guest rooms.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1007
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1008
Figure 2
Approximate Project Boundaries Map
Project
Site (5D2)
Las Positas
Vineyards
Single-Family
Residences
Site 5D1
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1009
Figure 3
Prototypical Site Plans – Sites 5D1 and 5D2
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1010
Figure 4
Site Plan (Site 5D2)
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1011
Upon development of the proposed project, the inn would provide 37 total beds across the 30 rooms. A public kitchen and restaurant would provide 77 seats for breakfast, lunch, and dinner service. The restaurant would offer indoor seating as well as dining options on the terrace. The courtyard lounge would provide seating areas for guests as well. The inn would also include a conference room for primary use by guests staying at the inn, as well as staff.

Landscaping
The project would provide for landscaping improvements throughout the project site, including new trees and shrubs along the perimeter of the site and bordering the proposed building (see Figure 5). Two fountains would be located within the project site, one on the western terrace and a second in the courtyard area to the east. A wall fountain would also be provided along the eastern border of the site, within the vehicle turnaround area. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with Section 13.25 of the Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape, and would be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. The vineyard area along the eastern border of the site would maintain some of the grape vines that are currently planted.

Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be provided by a new driveway at Hansen Road, along the northwestern portion of the site. The drive aisle would extend both east and west of the building.

To the west, a small number of parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the northern portion of the building. To the east, the drive aisle would extend to the southern border of the site and would provide parking spaces throughout.

Additionally, a turnaround area would be constructed outside of the courtyard and a cutout would provide a drop off area for guests. Primary access to the inn would be provided on the eastern side of the building, through the courtyard. A small terrace on the western side of the building would provide access to a concrete walkway that would circle the perimeter of the building and provide connection to the spa and pool area. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by a proposed connection to the Arroyo Road Trail, which provides connection throughout many areas of the City.

The proposed project would include development of a left-turn pocket lane for cars entering the project site from the westbound lane on Hansen Road. The pocket lane would be 25-feet long and allow for one vehicle stacking. The pocket lane would not require expansion of Hansen Road but would require repainting of the current median lines within the public right of way. On-site parking would be provided in the form of 43 standard stalls, 18 compact stalls, and four ADA compliant spaces. Electric vehicle spaces will be provided pursuant to the CALGreen Code, as further discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this document. A total of 12 bicycle parking spots would be provided on the north side of the parking area. A striped pedestrian crosswalk would extend across the new driveway.

Utilities
The preliminary utility plan is shown in Figure 6 below. Sewer services for the proposed development would be provided by the City of Livermore. As part of the proposed project, two new six- and eight-inch sewer lines would be constructed within the drive aisles of the project site, which would connect to the City’s existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Hansen Road.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1012
Figure 5
Landscaping Plan
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1013
Figure 6
Preliminary Utility Plan
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1014
Water services for the proposed project would be provided by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water). A new four-inch water line would connect to an existing stub at the north end of the project site, which connects to a 12-inch water line in Hansen Road.

Irrigation water would be provided to the project site by an existing connection to a two-inch irrigation line in Hansen Road operated by Cal Water. In addition, the project would include a new six-inch fire service water line, which would circulate around the building and connect to the existing water lines on Hansen Road.

Stormwater at the project site would be captured by a series of new storm drains, directed to one of two new bio-retention basins located on the western and southeastern sides of the building (see Figure 7). The treatment areas would total 1,787 square feet and provide for detention and treatment of stormwater. The basins would treat stormwater primarily by filtering runoff slowly through an active layer of soil, allowing for removal of pollutants. Treated stormwater would be routed through a new 15-inch stormwater drain pipe connecting to the City’s existing 18-inch storm drain located in Hansen Road. The existing earthen drainage swale and associated drain inlets along the western site boundary would remain in place.

Sustainable Features
In addition to using water-efficient landscaping, as discussed above, the proposed project would implement a number of sustainable features. The proposed building would be all-electric, with the exception of the commercial kitchen, as allowed by the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, adopted by the City. In addition, the project would supplement 80 to 90 percent of on-site energy with solar panels. Additionally, the project would use low-flow toilets and shower heads in guest rooms, provide electric vehicle charging stations, use 100 percent biodegradable laundry soap for washing machines, and replace paper towels with hand linens in the restrooms. The project would also participate in the Alameda County Bay Area Green Business Certification Program, which verifies that businesses meet higher standards of environmental performance.

Conditional Use Permit
The development of a caretaker’s residence requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) within the project site’s Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001 zoning designation. Thus, the proposed project would require approval of a CUP by the City of Livermore.

Site Plan and Design Review
The proposed project is subject to Site Plan and Design Review by the City. Chapter 9.07 of the City’s Development Code specifies that the purpose of Site Plan and Design Review “is to provide a process for the appropriate review of construction and development projects.” Such review is intended to ensure that new development within the City respect environmental and aesthetic considerations, reduce potential visual impacts, and provide for physical safety of the public, among other considerations. The required findings for Site Plan and Design Review will be provided in staff reports for the decision-makers’ consideration when the project is agendized for public hearings.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1015
Figure 7
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1016
SLVSP Text Amendment
Policy 4-7 of the SLVSP currently states that building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from road frontages, and that all setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards.

The proposed SLVSP Text Amendment would amend Policy 4.7 as follows:

Policy 4-7: Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from the property line road frontages, except for commercial site #3A which shall be 25 feet and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards, except the 50-foot setback from Hansen Road for commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2, which may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

As will be discussed in this addendum, the proposed 50-foot setback from Hansen Road generally conforms with the prototypical site plan for Site 5D1 and 5D2, included in the SVLSP and evaluated in the SLVSP EIR. The 50-foot setback is also consistent with the requirements of the later-approved Planned Unit Development Permit #165, Amendment #01-001 (PUD Permit or Permit) covering the area of the Specific Plan that includes Site 5D1 and 5D2.

Requested Entitlements
The proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Livermore:
x Approval of a SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7 to clarify that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road for Site 5D1 and the subject site (Commercial Site 5D2). x Approval of a Conditional Use Permit;
x Site Plan and Design Review
D. BASELINE FOR THE ANALYSIS
In cases where an approved project has already undergone environmental review, and the environmental document has been certified by the lead agency, the lead agency can restrict its review to the incremental effects of the modified project, rather than having to reconsider the overall impacts of the project as if it were proposed for the first time. In other words, if the project under review constitutes a modification of a previously approved project previously subjected to environmental review, then the “baseline” for purposes of CEQA is adjusted such that the originally approved project is assumed to exist.4
Thus, the environmental baseline for this analysis
consists of the conceptual commercial center and wine country inn project shown in the prototypical site plans for Commercial Sites 5D1 and 5D2 in the SLVSP (pg. 12-13). As discussed on page 4-35 of the SLVSP, the inn was assumed to have up to 30 guest rooms and the restaurant would have up to 100 seats. Access to sites 5D1 and 5D2 was assumed to be from the main subarea entry road (i.e., today’s Hansen Road), rather than from Arroyo Road.

E. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purpose of this Addendum:

1. Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2017 Congestion Management Program.

December 2017.
4 See Michael H. Remy et al. Guide to CEQA, 11th Edition. Point Arena: Solano Press Books (2007), p. 207; Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act, Second Edition (Vol. 1). Oakland:

Continuing Education of the Bar (2018), p. 12-32; Benton v. Board of Supervisors (1st Dist. 1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1467.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1017

2. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.

October 31, 2017.

3. Bae urban economics. City of Livermore Downtown Hotel Feasibility Study. June 30, 2015.

4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.

5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update.

Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-qualityact-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed March 2023.

6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.

7. CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed March 2023.

8. California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023.

9. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Alameda County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. September 3, 2006.

10. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.

Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed March 2023.

11. California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Livermore District. June 2021.

12. CBG Civil Engineers. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan Livermore Wine Country Inn.

April 2019.

13. City of Livermore. Design Standards and Guidelines. Adopted June 28, 2004.

14. City of Livermore. Emergency Operations Plan. January 2018.

15. City of Livermore. General Plan 2003-2025. Amended December 2014.

16. City of Livermore. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. May 1997.

17. City of Livermore. South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. November 17, 1997; Amended February 2004.

18. Daniel Edelstein, Environmental Scientist and Consulting Biologist. Summary Biological Report. January 8, 2019.

19. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Vasco Road Landfill, Application for Solid Waste Facility Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. October 31, 2018.

20. Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization. January 2019.

21. ENGEO Incorporated. Geotechnical Exploration. Revised April 15, 2019.

22. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0344G.

Effective August 3, 2009.

23. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

24. Native American Heritage Commission. Wine Country Inn Project, City of Livermore; Livermore USGS Quadrangle, Alameda County, California. July 24, 2019.

25. Northwest Information Center. Records Search Results for the Proposed Wine Country Inn Project. August 15, 2019.

26. Rodney Worth, The Worth Group, Chef & Owner. Letter to Kam Purewal, Planner, City of Livermore, titled “Gas Appliance Exemption for New Construction Commercial Kitchen.” April 24, 2023.

27. Saxelby, Luke, Principal Consultant at Saxelby Acoustics. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning & Management, Inc. April 26, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1018

28. TJKM. Traffic Impact Study – Livermore Wine Country Inn. August 23, 2019.

29. Zone 7 Water Agency. Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin. September 2005.

F. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
On the basis of the following Addendum, the City has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the SLVSP EIR. All project impacts have been determined to be less than significant, or can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level given required compliance with mitigation measures specified by the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, none of the environmental factors below are significantly affected.

Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest
Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy

Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology and Water
Quality

Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources

Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services

Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources

Utilities and Service
Systems

Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1019
G. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Addendum:

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

F 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 applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

F I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” 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 measures 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.
³ As demonstrated in this Addendum, the City has determined that the proposed project does not present a legal or evidentiary basis for the preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and that an Addendum to the SLVSP EIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project.

Signature Date
Kam Purewal, Associate Planner City of Livermore
Printed Name For
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1020
H. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changes” or “new information” that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that potential impacts do not exist relative to the environmental category, but that a relevant change would not occur in the condition or status of the impact due to its insignificance or its treatment in a previous environmental document. The following impact evaluation categories will be used to evaluate the proposed project as compared to the SLVSP EIR:

Explanation Of Impact Evaluation Categories
This section describes the organization of the sections for each CEQA Appendix G environmental resource area included in this Addendum.

Where Impact Was Analyzed in the Previous CEQA Documents: This column provides a reference to the page(s) of the SLVSP EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the current project will result in new significant impacts that have not already been considered and mitigated by a previous EIR or that substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact. If a “yes” answer is given and new or more severe significant impacts are specified, additional mitigations will be specified in the discussion section including a statement of impact status after mitigation.

Any New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) that have occurred subsequent to the certification of an EIR, which would result in the current project having significant impacts that were not considered or mitigated by that EIR or which substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(AD) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. If the new information shows that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; or (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; or (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects or the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, the question would be answered ‘Yes’ requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Environmental Checklist Review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1021
substantially more severe, the question would be answered ‘No’ and no additional EIR documentation (supplement to the EIR or subsequent EIR) would be required.

Mitigation Sections
This section describes the previous and/or modified mitigation measures for the proposed project and how the mitigation measures are presented within each section of this Addendum.

Prior Mitigation Measures: Applicable mitigation measures from the previous CEQA document(s) that apply to the changes or new information are referenced under each environmental category.

These mitigation measures follow the numbering scheme of the SLVSP EIR.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures: If changes or new information involve new impacts, additional mitigation measures, if available and feasible, are listed under each environmental category.

It should be noted that under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15162(a)(1), the requirements to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR are triggered when substantial changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR. Such language implies that a new or revised mitigation measure that does not require a major revision could be adopted on the basis of an addendum, rather than a supplemental EIR. Similarly, the provisions of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15162(a)(3)(c-d) require a further EIR only if newly feasible or considerably different mitigation becomes available but is not adopted. Such provisions also imply that newly feasible or different mitigation can be adopted based on an addendum without the need for a supplemental EIR.

All additional mitigation measures included herein will be included as project conditions to address project-specific impacts. The project applicant has agreed in advance to accept all such mitigation measures.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1022
I. AESTHETICS.

Would the project:

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Pgs. 4.8-31
to 4.8-32 No No No
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic
highway?
Pgs. 4.8-31
to 4.8-32 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.8-31
to 4.8-32 No No No
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a,c. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. Specific scenic vista points have been identified throughout the City; however, the project site is not located within the vicinity of any scenic vistas identified in Figure 4-1 of the City of Livermore General Plan. In addition, the SLVSP does not identify specific scenic vistas within the South Livermore Valley. Notwithstanding, the SLVSP describes the scenic quality of the setting within South Livermore Valley as being generally quite high, with views to the south tending to have much higher scenic quality than those to the north given the lower levels of development and the distinctiveness of the foothill backdrop.

A number of roadways have been identified within the City that are considered scenic routes. Scenic routes are designated as such because they pass through areas of high scenic value or provide access to important scenic, recreational, cultural, or historic points.5
The segment of Arroyo Road on which the project site is located is identified as a scenic route. The SLVSP includes development standards to protect the scenic character of Arroyo Road. To meet the standards, the project would include a 100-foot landscape buffer with vineyard planting along the Arroyo Road frontage and strong architectural design for the building façade visible along the Arroyo Road scenic route. The project would be consistent with all standards that ensure the development does not detract from the scenic character of Arroyo Road.

Impact 4.8-6, “View of Commercial Development in Subarea 5”, of the SLVSP EIR, specifically evaluated the potential visual effects of the development of a commercial inn on the project site, and concludes that the visual impact would be less than significant, 5 City of Livermore. General Plan 2003-2025 [pg. 4-25]. Amended December 2014.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1023
and no mitigation would be required. The description of the inn found in Impact 4.8-6 is consistent with the proposed project – e.g., a 30-room inn with a large restaurant having a maximum of 100 seats. Furthermore, the EIR includes a photosimulation of an inn at the project site from Arroyo Road (see Exhibit 4.8-16), though as noted, it “…is not intended to present a precise representation of this particular commercial development. Rather, it attempts to present how such a commercial development could appear, given the design and architectural guidelines of the Draft Plan.” The SLVSP EIR concludes that the commercial development of an inn at the project site within Subarea 5 would be less-thansignificant for the following reasons.

Impact 4.8-6 of the SLVSP EIR categorizes the sensitivity of Subarea 5 as “moderate” for color and texture and “low” for line and form.6
As stated on page 32 of Chapter 4.8 of the
EIR, the form and line of development would contrast with surrounding landscapes, and, therefore, the visual dominance of this type or scale of commercial development would be considered “dominant”. The EIR goes on to state, “Because the visual sensitivity of this area is low for form and line, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.” Impact 4.8-6 continues by addressing materials and colors, stating that the building’s assumed color and texture would borrow from the surrounding environment. As such, the visual dominance would be considered “co-dominant”. The EIR goes on to state, “Because the visual sensitivity of the subarea is moderate for color and texture, this is considered a less-than-significant impact.”
Turning to the “Visual Significance Matrix” in the EIR (Exhibit 4.8-2 of the SLVSP EIR [Table 1 of this Addendum]), the results of the above analysis can be illustrated as follows (note: colors added for illustration purposes):

Table 1
Visual Significance Matrix
Sensitivity
Visual Dominance
Dominant Co-dominant Subordinate Inevident
Maximum Significant Significant Significant Less-thansignificant High Significant Significant Less-thansignificant
Less-thansignificant
Moderate Significant Less-thansignificant
Less-thansignificant Less-thansignificant
Low Less-thansignificant
Less-thansignificant Less-thansignificant Less-thansignificant Line and Form. The sensitivity of Subarea 5 for line and form is shown in blue and is considered “low”. The visual dominance of line and form for this type of commercial development is also shown in blue and is considered “dominant.” Using the matrix, a lessthan-significant conclusion is reached for line and form visual effects. 6 As discussed on page 3 of the SLVSP EIR, to determine the significance of the change in a view, two elements are considered. One element is the sensitivity of the view. The second element is the visual dominance of development. Visual dominance is a measure of how the form, line, color, and texture of structures added to a view interact with the natural surroundings where development would occur.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1024
Colors and Texture. The sensitivity of Subarea 5 for color and texture is shown in green and is considered “moderate”. The visual dominance of colors and texture for this type of commercial development is also shown in green and is considered “co-dominant.” Using the matrix, a less-than-significant conclusion is reached for color and texture visual effects.

As a result, the overall conclusion of Impact 4.8-6 of the SLVSP EIR, pertaining to the visual effects of the commercial development of an inn on the project site, is less-thansignificant.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to scenic vistas or substantial degradation of visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Consistent with the evaluation in the SLVSP EIR, the proposed project would include a 100-foot, vineyard-planted setback from Arroyo Road and the color and texture of the structure would borrow from the surrounding environment, as ensured by the City through the Site Plan and Design Review process, pursuant to Section 9.07.020 of the City’s Development Code. The proposed text amendment to SLVSP Policy 4-7 to clarify that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road for Site 5D1 and Site 5D2 would not alter the less-than-significant conclusion in the SLVSP EIR related to commercial development of an inn within Subarea 5. As previously mentioned, Hansen Road is not identified as a scenic route by the City, the prototypical site plan included in the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2 already anticipates a setback from Hansen Road less than 100 feet, and the findings of the Visual Significance Matrix included in the SLVSP EIR, and shown above, remain applicable. Further, while parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure would be allowed within 100 feet of Hansen Road, the Commercial Design Guidelines & Standards in the SLVSP include standards sufficient to ensure that adverse aesthetic effects would not result. For example, Section 12.3.2 requires screening of trash enclosures with wall, fence, or landscape elements (SLVSP, pg. 12-22). Figure 5, Landscaping Plan, of this document demonstrates that vegetation would be planted along Site 5D2’s Hansen Road frontage to screen the proposed trash enclosure as well as the surface parking lot. Similar requirements would apply to Site 5D1 at such time a development proposal is submitted for said site.

The visual dominance for line and form, likely the most relevant factors when considering aesthetic effects of a structure’s proximity to a roadway, is already considered Dominant for commercial development in Subarea 5 by the SVLSP EIR, and yet, the analysis concluded that the proposed 30-room inn and restaurant would have a less-thansignificant aesthetic impact due to low sensitivity of the views at this location with respect to line and form.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the project site is not located within the vicinity of an officially designated State Scenic Highway.7 Interstate 580, located
approximately 3.7 miles north of the site, is an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but has not been officially designated. Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts 7 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed March 2023.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1025
than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
d. Due to the undeveloped nature of the project site, existing sources of light and glare do not currently exist within the site. However, street lights exist along Hansen Road in proximity to the project site. In addition, the nearby single-family residences and the Las Positas Vineyard building feature outdoor and indoor lighting fixtures.

Development of the project site with a proposed inn, restaurant, caretaker’s unit, and parking areas would involve sources of light and glare associated with interior light spilling through windows, vehicle headlights entering and exiting the project site, exterior lighting on the proposed structure, and associated with the internal drive aisles, and light reflected off windows. However, the SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumes the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As a result, such sources of light and glare would be consistent with the type of lighting anticipated for the project site. According to a lighting analysis performed for the proposed project, the project could result in minimal spillage of light within the area to the west of the site due to low wattage. However, the land directly west of the site is vacant and used for vineyard growth and, thus, project lighting would not impact any sensitive receptors. The light analysis also determined that light produced by the proposed project would not extend beyond Hansen Road, which is lined with street lights, and would not be visible from the existing single-family residences to the northwest of the site.

Furthermore, through the City’s Site Plan and Design Review process, the proposed project would be reviewed for consistency with the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines.8
Section F, Lighting, of Chapter 4 of the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines contains specific restrictions to ensure that the design of fixtures and the light provided contributes to the character of development and does not adversely affect adjacent development. Per Section 5.1.1 of the Guidelines, area lighting should be designed so as to avoid light being directed off-site. In addition, Section 2.1.4 states that lighting should be directed downward to avoid lighting of the night sky. Compliance with the foregoing sections of the City’s Design Standards and Guidelines would ensure that lighting from the proposed project would not be directed off-site, and would not adversely affect the residential development to the northwest, or the winery building to the south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.
8 City of Livermore. Design Standards and Guidelines. Adopted June 28, 2004.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1026
II. AGRICULTURE AND
FORESTRY RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Pgs. 4.1-16
to 4.1-26 No No No
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
Pgs. 4.1-27
to 4.-28 No No No
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))?
N/A No No No
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
N/A No No No
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could individually or
cumulatively result in loss of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Pgs. 4.1-16
to 4.1-26 No No No
Discussion
a,e. Agricultural land within the SLVSP area represents the largest land use in the area. As stated in Section 6.3.1 of the SLVSP,
The original impetus for preparing this Specific Plan was the desire to preserve and protect valuable agricultural land in the South Valley, particularly for the cultivation of wine grapes. In light of the impacts to agriculture and open space associated with urban development in the South Livermore Valley, the City and County concluded that such development could only occur in tandem with the permanent protection of large areas of agricultural land. The Agricultural Mitigation program that requires one-for-one mitigation for new development is the primary vehicle for providing permanent protection for agricultural lands and meeting the requirements of the South Livermore Valley Specific Plan. Under this program, all new development will be required to mitigate the loss of agricultural and open space lands through the dedication of agricultural or open space easements and the planting of agricultural crops. Based on the development proposed in the Plan, the Agricultural Mitigation Program will secure approximately 1,943.9 acres of agricultural land in the greater South Livermore Valley area. Of this total it is estimated that approximately 858.9 acres of new agricultural land will be secured and planted in the planning subareas.

Overall, the SLVSP EIR determined that the SVLVSP would result in a net loss of approximately 695 acres of agricultural land within the specific plan area. SLVSP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 states that “Adoption and implementation of Draft Plan Policies 6-1 and 6-3 would carry out the agricultural mitigation program initially established by the ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1027
County's Area Plan and subsequently included in the City of Livermore Community General Plan's South Livermore Valley Policies. No additional mitigation would be required to address significant adverse impacts.”
Currently, the project site is vacant and undeveloped. The eastern portion of the site contains some grape vines and the remainder of the site is covered with ruderal vegetation. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates the project site as Unique Farmland. Prime Farmland is not mapped on-site. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) considers Unique Farmland as land other than Prime Farmland that is used for the production of specific crops such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other fruits. However, Unique Farmland is not based on national criteria. The Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project determined that the project site is mapped within older alluvium, generally consisting of interbedded clay, silt, sand, and gravel. During the exploratory borings, the subsurface soil layer consisted of hard lean clay with varying amounts of gravel. The Storie Index Soil Rating prepared by the NRCS gives gravelly clay a Grade 3, which includes soils of fair quality but with a more restricted range of suitability than Grades 1 and 2. Soils in Grade 3 may give good results with certain specialized crops.

Therefore, agricultural activities within the project site could face limitations based on soil suitability for certain crops. Furthermore, most of the existing grape vines on the eastern portion of the site would remain and the proposed project would incorporate a vegetable garden and fruit orchard on the southern portion of the project site. Thus, some agricultural land would be retained and cultivated.

Because development of the proposed project site with a 30-room inn and caretaker’s unit and associated agricultural land conversion was already considered in the SLVSP EIR, there are no proposed changes to the project that would substantially increase the severity of the project’s agricultural land conversion, and the SLVSP includes an Agricultural Mitigation Program to adequately offset loss of agricultural land, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b. According to the SLVSP EIR, nine parcels within the specific plan area were covered by Williamson Act Contracts at the time the SLVSP EIR was drafted. However, non-renewal notices were filed for eight of the nine parcels covered by Williamson Act contracts. As such, the contracts expired in January 1998 through January 2005 on all parcels except the Crohare's 48-acre eastern parcel for which a notice of non-renewal was not filed at the time the SLVSP EIR was drafted. As such, the SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measure

4.1-3, which would ensure that the City not approve any additional development projects on land subject to Williamson Act contracts within the SLVSP area. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3, the SLVSP concluded that a less-than-significant impact would occur.

None of the land within the project site is currently held under Williamson Act contracts.

Additionally, the project site is designated SLVSP, Subarea 5, Vineyard Commercial by the City’s General Plan and is zoned Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan PUDA 01-001. The site is not zoned for agricultural use. Furthermore, according to the Specific Plan, the City has designated the site for a commercial inn and restaurant. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning. As such, the currently proposed project would have no impacts related to conflicts ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1028
with a Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning, and Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 included in the SLVSP EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
c,d. The project site is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). As noted above, the project site is currently zoned Planned Development-South Livermore Valley Specific Plan, PUDA 01-001. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1029
III. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
Pgs. 4.6-5
to 4.6-8 No No No
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Pgs. 4.6-5
to 4.6-8 No No No
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? Pg. 4.6-6 No No No d. Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Pg.4.6-9 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The City of Livermore is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SLVSP EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to result in impacts related to the generation of temporary, short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants, and the generation of long-term operational emissions of criteria pollutants.

According to the SLVSP EIR, during construction of the SLVSP, areas downwind of construction activities would be impacted intermittently by construction dust. Specifically, the SLVSP EIR noted that Subareas 4 and 7 would have a relatively high potential for construction dust impacts related to grading, because development of both subareas would involve hillside construction, and Subareas 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 would have a relatively low potential for construction dust impacts related to grading, because the subareas are relatively flat. To ensure impacts related to construction dust emissions would be less than significant, the SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and 4.6-1(b), which require compliance with the BAAQMD basic constriction dust control measures for all construction within the SLVSP, and require compliance with BAAQMD’s enhanced construction dust control measures for construction sites larger than four acres. The SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and 4.6- 1(b) all impacts would be less than significant.

With regard to operational emissions, based on the emissions presented in Exhibit 4.6-5 of the SLVSP EIR, the EIR determined that SLVSP generated automobile traffic would incrementally increase air pollutant emissions in the region beyond the applicable BAAOMD thresholds of significance (i.e., 80 pounds per day [lb/day] for Reactive Organic Gasses [ROG], Nitrogen Oxides [NOX], and respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter [PM10]. The SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.6-3, which establishes measures for individual residential projects of the SLVSP to implement during development. However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 would have the potential of reducing projected emissions by an estimated one to two percent, which would not be sufficient to reduce impacts attributable to the SLVSP to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, impacts on regional air quality were determined to remain significant and unavoidable.

Since the SLVSP EIR was adopted, the BAAQMD has adopted updated guidelines that contain new thresholds for criteria air pollutants to reflect current air quality conditions in the region. The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1030
(PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated as in attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.

In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP), adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 CAP was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 CAP. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.

The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 2.

Table 2
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1031
By exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.

In order to compare the proposed project’s emissions to the most recent BAAQMD thresholds, air quality modeling was conducted for the proposed project. The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2016.3.29 – a statewide model
designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), etc. Where projectspecific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. For the proposed project, project-specific trip generation rates provided by TJKM traffic consultants were input into the model, as well as information related to the anticipated 18- month construction schedule for the proposed project. Additionally, inherent site design features such as the project’s use of traffic calming measures (installation of a short leftturn pocket), use of solar panels for 80 percent of electricity generation, and installation of low-flow toilets and shower heads were included in the modelling. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix B to this Addendum.

The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well.

Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. However, NOx emissions related to construction of the proposed project would slightly exceed the applicable BAAQMD threshold of significance.

Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 4.17 54 NO
NOX 66.4 54 YES
PM10* 1.40 82 NO
PM2.5* 1.30 54 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Source: CalEEMod, July 2019 (see Appendix B).
9 Since the time that the air quality modeling was conducted for the proposed project (2019), the CalEEMod software has been updated. However, the construction and operations of projects are generally becoming less emissions intensive over time due to increasingly stringent State regulations and, as a result, the analysis presented in this Addendum is conservative. Thus, updating the modeling using the newest CalEEMod software is not warranted.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1032
All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs), which include the following:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-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.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. 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.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs listed above would help to reduce the construction-related emissions from the levels estimated and presented in Table 3, and would ensure the proposed project is compliant with Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a) of the SLVSP EIR. Because the proposed project is less than four acres, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) of the SLVSP EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project.

While the BAAQMD BCMMs would help to reduce the construction-related emissions, the proposed project would still result in construction-related emissions above the applicable threshold of significance for NOX. As such, the proposed project would be required to comply with additional project-specific Mitigation Measure III-1, as presented below, which would ensure all impacts related to construction-generated criteria air pollutant emissions of NOX would be less-than-significant.

Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 4. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance.

Because the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a potentially significant air quality impact during operations. It should also be noted that ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1033
because Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 of the SLVSP EIR only establishes measures for individual residential projects, and the proposed project is commercial in nature, Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 of the SLVSP EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Table 4
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 1.20 0.22 54 10 NO
NOX 2.10 0.41 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.04 0.00 82 15 NO
PM2.5* 0.04 0.00 54 10 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD has not yet adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Source: CalEEMod (see Appendix B).

Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 2 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 2, the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. The proposed project would be below all applicable thresholds for criteria pollutants during operation, and would be below emissions thresholds for ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 during construction. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with additional project-specific Mitigation Measure III-1, as presented below, which would ensure all impacts related to constructiongenerated criteria air pollutant emissions of NOX would be less-than-significant.

Conclusion
Compliance with additional project-specific Mitigation Measure III-1 would ensure that the proposed project’s construction-generated emissions be reduced to a less than significant impact. The SLVSP EIR concluded that construction-generated emissions resulting from development across the SLVSP area would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. There is no evidence that the proposed project would result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to contributing to the region’s nonattainment status for ozone or PM or contributing substantially to the violation of an air quality standard, or contributing to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change, and the proposed project remains consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1034
c. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions and localized CO emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.

TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure. Health-related risks associated with DPM in particular are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer.

It should be noted that the SLVSP EIR did not expressly address the SLVSP’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations as TACs were not routinely analyzed at the time the EIR was prepared. Therefore, the following includes an updated project-specific analysis of the potential for the proposed wine country inn and restaurant to expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations.

The proposed inn, restaurant, and caretaker’s unit would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. As such, the project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations.

Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions.

Construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would likely be limited to 18 months.

All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. In addition, construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the day and only on portions of the site at a time.

Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, the potential for any one sensitive receptor in the area to be exposed to concentrations of pollutants for a substantially extended period of time would be low. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1035
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to operational emissions beyond what was analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Localized CO Emissions
Emissions of CO result from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood and are particularly related to traffic levels. Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections.

As older, more polluting vehicles are retired and replaced with newer, cleaner vehicles, the overall rate of emission of CO for vehicle fleets throughout the State has been and is expected to continue to decrease. As described below, the SLVSP EIR determined that implementation of the SLVSP would increase traffic volumes on streets near the project from current levels, which would likely result in a slight increase in localized CO concentrations; however, project-generated traffic would result in CO levels below CAAQS. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts related to CO emissions would be less than significant.

According to the SLVSP EIR, contribution of project-generated traffic to CO levels in the project area was predicted based on the Caline4 Line-Source Dispersion Model. Future CO levels were predicted near five selected intersections within the SLVSP area using 2010 traffic projections, and were compared to the State standard of 20 parts per million (PPM) and the Federal standard of 35 PPM for one-hour concentrations, and the State and Federal standard of nine PPM for eight-hour concentrations. As presented in Exhibit

4.6-7 of the SLVSP EIR, one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations at the selected intersections would be significantly below State and Federal standards. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed throughout this Addendum, the currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed SLVSP. Moreover, the SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a large restaurant. As such, traffic generated by the proposed project, and associated CO emissions, were previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR. However, traffic volumes on local roadways are reasonably assumed to have increased since the time that the SLVSP EIR was drafted, and BAAQMD guidance for assessing CO emissions has been updated since the SLVSP EIR was certified in 1997. In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions.

According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
x 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;
x The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
x 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, underpass, etc.).

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1036
The proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 344 daily trips, including 14 AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips.10 Given that the project would generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designations, the project would not conflict with the Alameda County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Plan.11 In addition, the project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, intersections where air mixing is inhibited do not exist in proximity to the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at an affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour, or 24,000 per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited. As such, based on the BAAQMD screening criteria, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emissions concentrations and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to localized CO concentrations or other emissions from vehicles on roadways or intersections in the vicinity of the project site.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project remains consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. d. Emissions of concern include those leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in sections “a” through “c” above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.

The SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential for air quality related land use conflicts within the SLVSP. According to the SLVSP, disking, weeding, or vehicle travel on unpaved roads creates dust which would be carried to adjacent properties by the wind. Therefore, because the prevailing wind direction in the dry season is westerly, the SLVSP EIR determined that a potential land use conflict related to dust would exist whenever residential uses are located east of agricultural lands without a substantial setback. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 was included in the SLVSP EIR which would require developers to provide disclosure statements to prospective buyers warning of possible agricultural nuisances within residential development in Subareas 1, 2, 4, and 7. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-4, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 of the SLVSP EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project, as the proposed project would not result in residential development within Subareas 1, 2, 4, or 7.

With regard to odors, the SLVSP EIR noted that development of Subarea 1 would place residences in proximity to percolation ponds located on the Sandia National Laboratories site, which are an intermittent source of odors reportedly generated by decaying vegetation. However, the SLVSP EIR determined that given the intermittent nature of the 10 TJKM. Traffic Impact Study – Livermore Wine Country Inn. August 23, 2019. 11 Alameda County Transportation Commission. 2017 Congestion Management Program [pg. 85]. December 2017.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1037
odors, the minimum 200-foot distance between the ponds and eastern Subarea 1 boundary, and the ponds' location downwind from Subarea 1, impacts would be less than significant.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.12 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.

Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.

Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.

However, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted per Section 9.36.080 of the Municipal Code.

Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities.

It should be noted that BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have been received by the APCO for one year.

The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant.

As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The aforementioned measures would act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within project site, among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, most areas of the project site would be paved or landscaped. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1.

May 2017.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1038
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project remains consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the SLVSP EIR would apply to the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(a): In order to mitigate potentially significant construction dust impacts, the City should require implementation of the BAAQMD's following basic construction dust control measures as conditions of approval for all individual development projects or infrastructure improvement contracts in the SLVSP area:
x Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; x Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; x Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites daily with water sweepers; and
x Sweep streets daily with water sweepers, if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
The following additional project-specific mitigation measure would apply to the proposed project and has been agreed to by the project applicant:

III-1 Prior to approval of any grading plans, the project applicant shall show on the plans via notation that the contractor shall ensure that all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment (e.g., rubber-tired dozers, scrapers, cranes, etc.) to be used in the construction of the project (including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent. The plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1039
IV. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Pgs. 4.4-36
to 4.4-39 No No No
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 US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Pgs. 4.4-34
to 4.4-36 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.4-34
to 4.4-36 No No No
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
Pgs. 4.4-31
to 4.4-34 No No No
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Pgs. 4.4.27
to 4.4-31 No No No
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to substantially impact a candidate, sensitive, or special-status plant or wildlife species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the SLVSP EIR, future development within the SLVSP area would have the potential to affect habitat suitable for a number of special-status species. For Subarea 5, within which the project site is located, the SLVSP EIR determined burrowing owls and other protected raptors could occur, but other specialstatus species are not anticipated to occur within Subarea 5. In addition, the SLVSP EIR noted that while special-status plant species were not encountered during field surveys of the SLVSP area, the potential exists for special-status plants to be located within Subareas 4 and 7. Policy 6-26 would serve to mitigate potential impacts to any nesting birds and raptors by requiring preconstruction surveys be conducted prior to any ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1040
development within the SLVSP area. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts to protected species would be less than significant.

The proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed SLVSP. As such, impacts to special-status species associated with the proposed project were previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR. Nonetheless, to ensure that additional special-status species have not populated the project site since the SLVSP EIR was drafted, a Summary Biological Report was prepared for the proposed project by biologist Daniel Edelstein (see Appendix C).13
As part of the Summary Biological Report, Daniel Edelstein conducted a search of published records of special-status plant and wildlife species for the Altamont USGS 7.5” quadrangle, using the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). The intent of the database review was to identify documented occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the project area, to determine their locations relative to the project site, and for use in the field assessment of habitats suitable for special-status species within the site.

On January 2, 2019 Daniel Edelstein conducted a field assessment that consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project site noting land uses, vegetation types, plant and wildlife species, and the presence or absence of jurisdictional wetland features. The results of the database searches and field survey are discussed below.

Special-Status Plants
As noted in the Summary Biological Report, the existing flora species on the project site are likely all common plant species. Rare and/or listed plant species were not detected during the survey. The disturbed, ruderal composition of the plant species on the site was not anticipated to yield any rare, listed plant species during the botanical blooming season, which is typically February through June. Thus, the site does not contain any potentially suitable habitat for special-status plant species. The proposed project includes improvements on Hansen Road to create a left-turn pocket lane for cars entering the site from the westbound side of Hansen Road. All off-site enhancements would occur within the public right-of-way, in a paved, disturbed area. As such, special-status plants would not be disturbed during the development of the left-turn pocket lane.

It should be noted that the site is within the boundaries of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) within Conservation Zone (CZ) 2. However, according to maps in Appendix D of the EACCS, the site is not within the range of potential habitat for any plant species covered under the EACCS (i.e., San Joaquin spearscale, recurved larkspur, big tarplant, and Congdon’s tarplant).

Special-Status Wildlife
According to the Summary Biological Report, due to the lack of required habitat features (i.e., woodland, chaparral, alkaline meadows, and riparian vegetation), the project site does not support suitable habitat conditions for any special-status species. Additionally, special-status species were not observed on the project site during the biological survey.

The left-turn pocket lane that would be created within the right-of-way on Hansen Road would not require ground disturbance and would take place in a developed, paved area.

Thus, the improvements would not impact special-status wildlife. 13 Daniel Edelstein, Environmental Scientist and Consulting Biologist. Summary Biological Report. January 8, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1041
The project site is within the boundaries of the EACCS within CZ 2. According to maps in Appendix D of the EACCS, the modeled habitat for special-status species does not overlap with the project site, with the exception of potential upland/movement habitat for California red-legged frog and upland habitat for California tiger salamander. However, the project site does not contain aquatic habitats and the SLVSP EIR determined Subarea 5 is not anticipated to support such species.

While the project site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status species in the area, given that trees exist in the vicinity of the project site and some birds were observed during the site survey, the potential exists for nesting raptors or migratory birds, including species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), to be present within the site at certain times of year. All nesting raptors and migratory birds, regardless of their status, are protected by State and federal laws. Therefore, construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds constitute a violation of State and federal laws. Thus, project construction-related activities that would occur during the breeding season could result in an adverse effect to species protected under State Fish and Game Code and the MBTA, should such species be present on or adjacent to the project site. However, the proposed project would be subject to Policy 6-26 of the Specific Plan, which would require preconstruction surveys be conducted for nesting birds and raptors prior to any development within the project site and ensure that the proposed project would not result in impacts to any nesting raptors or migratory birds protected under the MBTA.

Conclusion
Special-status species are not expected to occur on the project site. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would be subject to Specific Plan Policy 6-26 of the Specific Plan, which require surveys be conducted for nesting birds and raptors prior to any development within the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b,c According to the SLVSP EIR, development within the SLVSP would eliminate scattered areas of seasonal wetlands and affect a limited area of unvegetated other waters.

Specifically, anticipated grading to accommodate residential, commercial, and agricultural development would affect possible seasonal wetlands in Subareas 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, including scattered seasonal wetlands in Subarea 2, an intermittent drainage and two large seasonal wetland areas in Subarea 5, a swale and drainage channel in the midelevations and possibly much of the lower Subarea 6 terrace, and a vernal pool and drainages in Subarea 7. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Specific Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant.

According to the Summary Biological Report, a dry watercourse was identified on the southern side of the project site. However, the biologist confirmed that the watercourse does not qualify as a wetland based on the fact that none of the three conditions for a wetland were met, including: soil properties; vegetation species composition; and the presence of water. In addition, there is sufficient drainage in the area such that intermittent, ephemeral, and/or perennial water conditions are not likely to occur on the site.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1042
The currently proposed project’s area of impact is within the previously analyzed area of impact of the SLVSP EIR, and new intermittent, ephemeral, and/or perennial water conditions were not discovered within the project site. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As such, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. d. According to the SLVSP EIR, future residential, commercial, and agricultural development within the Specific Plan area would alter the existing patterns of wildlife use by replacing substantial areas, primarily of grassland habitat, and possibly disrupting movement patterns of certain species. The EIR noted that development in each subarea would result in an incremental loss of existing habitat for wildlife as the extent of suburban development expands from central Livermore. In Subareas 1 through 5, the SLVSP EIR determined that the loss of habitat would not obstruct important movement corridors or links between permanent open space areas; however, development in Subarea 7 would substantially limit upland access to Sycamore Grove Park for terrestrial wildlife species. As such, the SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 to ensure that impacts to movement corridors, specifically within Subarea 7, would be mitigated. As a result, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is located in a partially urbanized area and is bordered by existing roadways to the north and east, residential developments to the west and northwest, and agricultural land to south, north, and east. While agricultural land could provide a movement corridor, the project site is surrounded by an existing fence that limits wildlife migration through the site. The project site and surrounding area does not contain streams or other waterways that could be used by migratory fish or as a wildlife corridor for other wildlife species. As such, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. In addition, the proposed project is not located within Subarea 7, and, therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As such, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
e. Following analysis of potentially substantial adverse effects on any sensitive natural communities, such as oak woodland communities, identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS, the SLVSP EIR concluded a less-thansignificant impact would occur with implementation of applicable Specific Plan policies, as well as Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, which would reduce significant impacts, including impacts related to the removal of sensitive vegetation communities, by mitigating the removal of mature oaks and other native trees located in areas of oak woodland and savanna communities within the SLVSP area.

The majority of the trees identified in the SLVSP EIR are located outside of the project site, as the site does not contain oak woodland habitat. The proposed project would include removal of 17 trees along the project frontage. None of the trees proposed for removal are considered protected trees pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code. However, ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1043
given that the trees are located within the public right-of-way, the trees are considered “street trees” according to Section 12.20.010 of the City’s Municipal Code. Prior to the removal of any street trees, a tree removal application must be submitted to the City pursuant to Sections 12.20.080 and 12.20.190 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed project would not be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, as the measure pertains to specific lots within the SLVSP area, and the project site was not identified within the SLVSP area as an area with potential to result in adverse impacts to trees.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
f. The project site is not located in an area with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other adopted local or State HCP.

Therefore, impacts related to conflicting with such plans were not discussed within the SLVSP EIR. It should be noted that the project site is within the boundaries of the EACCS, a guidance document for regional conservation and environmental permitting for private and public development projects. However, while conservation strategies are provided by the EACCS, the document is not considered an adopted HCP/NCCP.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1044
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Pgs. 4.10-9
to 4.10-11 No No No
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a unique
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Pgs. 4.10-7
to 4.10-8 No No No
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.

Pgs. 4.10-7
to 4.10-8 No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and determined that one formally designated historic resource, the Olivina Winery building in Subarea 7, is located within the SLVSP area. Furthermore, the SLVSP EIR determined that several resources that have the potential for listing are located within Subareas 3, 4, 6, and 7. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of SLVSP policies, impacts to historical resources would be less-thansignificant.

Currently, the site is vacant and undeveloped, with grape vines on the eastern border of the site. Thus, the site does not contain any structures which would be considered historical, nor would the project result in removal of any possible historic resources. In addition, the currently proposed project would be implemented within the previously analyzed footprint of the SLVSP EIR, and is located within Subarea 5, for which the SLVSP EIR did not identify any formally listed or potential historic resources. As such, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b,c. The SLVSP EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and did not identify any previously recorded archeological resources or human remains on or within the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan area. However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that construction activities could potentially disturb or destroy significant buried archaeological resources and/or human remains. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan Policy 6(b), which is equivalent to Mitigation Measure 1-l(c) of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan EIR, all potential impacts would be less than significant. General Plan Policy 6(b)/Mitigation Measure I-1(c) states that if any archaeological sites are found during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended pending site investigation by qualified professionals, and if, in the opinion of a qualified professional, the site will yield new information or important verification of previous findings, the site shall not be destroyed. The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the aforementioned policy/mitigation measure.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1045
To ensure that any additional resources have not been discovered since the adoption of the SLVSP EIR, a records search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area.14 The NWIC concluded that the project site does not contain any recorded archaeological resources nor any historic buildings or structures on any lists of historic resources. In addition, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search did not yield any information regarding the presence of Tribal Cultural Resources within the project site or the immediate area.15
Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.
14 Northwest Information Center. Records Search Results for the Proposed Wine Country Inn Project. August 15, 2019. 15 Native American Heritage Commission. Wine Country Inn Project, City of Livermore; Livermore USGS Quadrangle, Alameda County, California. July 24, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1046
VI. ENERGY.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
N/A No No Yes
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
N/A No No Yes
Discussion
a,b. Because Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines did not previously include a specific section on energy, the SLVSP EIR did not include a specific analysis of the Specific Plan’s potential energy-related impacts; however, as efficient use of energy was included in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the issue was still considered in the evaluation of the SLVSP. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality.

Through existing infrastructure, electrical and natural gas services are provided to the site by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E). During construction and operations, the currently proposed project would be subject to regulations required by the CARB, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the 2022 CALGreen standards.

A description of the California Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards follows, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations.

California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2023.16 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen standards regulate the method of use, properties, performance, types of materials used in construction, alteration repair, improvement and rehabilitation of a structure or improvement to property. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
x Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; x Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
16 California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1047
x Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use; x Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; x Incentives for installation of electric heat pumps, which use less energy than traditional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and water heaters;
x Required solar PV system and battery storage standards for certain buildings; and x Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.

Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect starting January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the 2019 standards. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structure would consume energy efficiently.

Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.

All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency for equipment used in construction of the proposed project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction.

Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand. Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy use, including, but not ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1048
limited to, State and federal vehicle standards, are much more stringent than the regulations in place at the time the SLVSP EIR was prepared. Therefore, construction energy usage related to the proposed project would be less than what was anticipated in the SLVSP EIR.

Operational Energy Use
Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of hotel and restaurant developments, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gaspowered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed inn and restaurant.

The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently. Required compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, electricity supplied to the project by PG&E would comply with the State’s RPS, which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.

As discussed in Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Addendum, the proposed project would be built all-electric, with the exception of the commercial kitchen, which is consistent with the requirements of the 2022 Green Building Standards Code, as well as Strategy B-1 of the City of Livermore Climate Action Plan (CAP). Furthermore, the proposed project would include on-site solar panels which would generate 80 to 90 percent of the project’s necessary electricity. The inclusion of solar panels would drastically reduce the demand for grid supplied electricity of the proposed project. Other sustainable features of the project, including garden boxes for growth of produce used in the restaurant and participation in a composting and recycling program, would contribute to the reduction of energy use.

With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this Addendum, the project site is located within close proximity to existing residences, bicycle infrastructure, and transit infrastructure, and would also provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. A total of seven EV capable spaces, 15 EV ready spaces, and two EV chargers would be provided on-site. Bicycle parking would be included on-site, which would encourage patrons to use alternative transportation. The site is in close proximity to several wineries, which would presumably be the main attraction for inn guests. The proximity of the site to existing wineries would shorten the trip length necessary to reach such attractions and reduce vehicle usage.

Furthermore, regulations pertaining to energy usage, including, but not limited to, Building Energy Efficiency Standards and State and federal vehicle standards, are much more ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1049
stringent than the regulations that were in place at the time the SLVSP EIR was prepared.

Therefore, operational energy usage from buildout of the proposed project would be less than what was anticipated in the SLVSP EIR.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would involve energy use associated with construction activities and operations; however, the proposed project would comply with all applicable State energy standards, which would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Furthermore, as discussed above, regulations pertaining to energy usage are much more stringent than the regulations that were in place at the time the SLVSP EIR was prepared. Therefore, energy usage from buildout of the proposed project would be less than what was anticipated in the SLVSP EIR, and impacts related to energy use would be less than significant.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1050
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

Pgs. 4.2-32
to 4.2-35 No No No
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Pgs. 4.2-32
to 4.2-35
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Pgs. 4.2-28
to 4.2-31;

4.2-35
iv. Landslides?
Pgs. 4.2-28
to 4.2-31;

4.2-35
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Pgs. 4.3-24
to 4.3-27 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.2-28
to 4.2-31;

4.2-35
No No No
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Pgs. 4.2-31
to 4.2-32 No No No
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?
N/A No No No
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
N/A No No No
Discussion
ai.-aii. The SLVSP EIR collectively analyzed the potential of buildout of the SLVSP to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the 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 or strong seismic ground shaking under Impacts 4.2-5 and 4.2-6. As discussed therein, because of the known presence of the Las Positas fault within Subarea 1, the probable location of the Las Positas fault in Subareas 4, 6, and 7, and the proximity of the SLVSP area to the Greenville, Verona, Calaveras, Hayward, Concord/Green Valley, San Andreas, and other active faults, a high probability exists that development within the SLVSP area would experience ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1051
strong groundshaking. The SLVSP EIR also noted that the possibility of on-site surface ground rupture in the vicinity of the Las Positas fault within Subareas 1, 4, 6, and 7 is considered high. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with incorporation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-5, SLVSP Policies, and applicable regulatory requirements, all impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The project site is located within Subarea 5, which is not known to be located within the Las Positas fault area. However, because of the presence of the Las Positas fault within the SLVSP area, and the proximity of the SLVSP area to other active faults, the potential exists for seismic hazards to occur at the project site. To assess project specific impacts related to seismic hazards, a site-specific Geotechnical Exploration was performed by ENGEO Incorporated for the project site (see Appendix D).17 According to the Geotechnical Exploration, the project site is located in an area of moderate seismicity. A review of the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps was conducted to evaluate nearby faults and the maximum moment magnitude produced by an earthquake in the vicinity of the project site. Known active faults do not cross the project site, nor is the site located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, earthquakes in excess of Moment Magnitude 7 have historically occurred in the Bay Area to the west, and along the margins of the Central Valley low magnitude earthquakes occur frequently. The two nearest active faults are the Greenville Fault, located approximately six miles northeast, and the Mount Diablo Thrust, located 6.5 miles north. Other active faults capable of producing significant shaking at the site include the Calaveras Fault located seven miles southwest, the Hayward Fault located 12 miles west, and the San Andreas Fault located 31 miles southwest.

Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and ground lurching. Because the project site does not contain any known active faults and is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, ground rupture is unlikely at the project site.

Based on past events, an earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated by the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking at the project site.

However, the California Building Code (CBSC) provides minimum standards to ensure that the proposed structure would be designed using sound engineering practices and appropriate engineering standards for the seismic area in which the project site is located.

Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Although conformance with the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably be assumed to ensure that the proposed structure would not collapse, resulting in a loss of life in a major earthquake. In addition, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 of the SLVSP EIR, which would ensure that the proposed project take the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) into account when designing and implementing site 17 ENGEO Incorporated. Geotechnical Exploration. Revised April 15, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1052
development, and secure breakable objects or focus work stations away from such potential hazards.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
aiii, aiv,
c. According to the SLVSP EIR, Subarea 5 is generally flat-lying and is underlain by Quaternary alluvium. In addition, because of shallow groundwater conditions in Subareas 3, 5, 6, and parts of 7, the SLVSP EIR determined that seismically induced liquefaction could occur. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR determined that with implementation of Policy 6-41, which would require development in Subareas 3, 5, 6, and 7 to evaluate liquefaction potential on a site-specific basis, the impact would be less than significant. With regard to landslides, the SLVSP EIR determined that potential large landslides within the SLVSP area, particularly in Subarea 7, could result in potential impacts. However, with implementation of Policy 6-38, which would require preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation, and implementation of design-level recommendations therein, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above, a site-specific Geotechnical Exploration was performed by ENGEO Incorporated for the project site (see Appendix D).18 Based on the findings of the Geotechnical Exploration, the project site would not be at significant risk for seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction and ground lurching, and would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death.

In addition, the topography of the project site is relatively flat to moderately sloped on the southern and western perimeters of the site. The elevations range from approximately 520 to 550 feet. Given the relatively level surface of the project site, land sliding as a result of a seismic activity would not be likely. Thus, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Furthermore, the project site does not contain any open faces that would be considered susceptible to lateral spreading, and based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, lateral spreading, and landslides is low to negligible at the project site.

However, ENGEO encountered between two and 5.5 feet of undocumented fill during the geotechnical exploration of the site. The undocumented fill generally consisted of medium stiff to very stiff lean clay to flat clay with varying amounts of gravel. Because the fill is undocumented, ENGEO concluded that the fill could be non-engineered. Non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. Such settlement could result in hazards to the proposed structures. As such, the Geotechnical Exploration included recommendations to ensure that all undocumented fill encountered within the project site would be removed and placed back as engineered fill within the project site. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 of the SLVSP EIR, the proposed project would be conditioned by the City of Livermore to adhere to all geotechnical recommendations prior to building construction, which would ensure hazards due to undocumented fill within the site would not occur.
18 ENGEO Incorporated. Geotechnical Exploration. Revised April 15, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1053
Therefore, compliance with all applicable SLVSP Policies, as well as implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Exploration would ensure that the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and determined that hillslope grading and conversion of large areas of existing grassland to vineyard cultivation would expose large areas to erosion by rainfall and hillslope runoff and would remove natural vegetation filters. However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Specific Plan Policies 8-23 through 8-27, impacts would be less than significant. Specific Plan Policies 8-23 through 8-27 require the preparation and implementation of agricultural sediment management plans, as well as a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and any other necessary engineering plans and specifications for pollution prevention and control. The aforementioned plans would be consistent City’ stormwater management plan and would contain specific BMPs to reduce erosion.

The currently proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed SLVSP. Moreover, the SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a large restaurant. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable Specific Plan policies and other regulations, such as the California Building Code (CBC). In addition, accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, in order to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, any construction activity affecting one acre or more must obtain a General Construction Permit. Permit applicants are required to prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality by implementing erosion control measures. Compliance with Specific Plan Policy 8-24 would ensure the proposed project prepare and implement a SWPPP. As such, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the necessary specifications to reduce impacts associated with substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
d. Expansive soils are soils which undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted, potentially resulting in damage to building foundations. Placement of buildings on unstable soils can result in structural failure. According to the SLVSP EIR, most of the soils present in the SLVSP area have low expansion potential, except for some soils of the Los Osos Association, which are mapped in the foothills of Subarea 7.

Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that compliance with Specific Plan Policy 6-40 would ensure that development in Subarea 7 would not result in hazards due to expansive soils, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

The project site is located within Subarea 5; however, based on the Geotechnical Exploration, potentially expansive lean clay was observed near the surface of the project site. Subsequent laboratory testing indicated that the soil exhibited low to high shrink/swell potential with variations in moisture content. Therefore, the Geotechnical Exploration included recommendations to further evaluate the potential for expansive behavior within ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1054
on-site soils, and to develop site-specific criteria for foundation design. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 of the SLVSP EIR, the proposed project would be conditioned by the City of Livermore to adhere to all geotechnical recommendations prior to building construction, which would ensure hazards due to expansive soils would not occur on-site.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
e. Because the parcels within the SLVSP area would obtain wastewater treatment and sewer services from the City of Livermore, and septic systems would not be developed as part of the project, impacts related to septic systems were not evaluated in the SLVSP EIR.

The proposed project would not include installation of septic tanks or construction of alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As such, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
f. The SLVSP EIR did not explicitly assess the SLVSP’s potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The City’s General Plan indicates that several Pleistocene aged paleontological fossils have been discovered within the City’s Planning Area. In particular, the most recent fossil discovery within the City occurred in the vicinity of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which is approximately four miles northeast of the project site.

As noted in the City’s General Plan, the City is underlain by alluvium, which consists mainly of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits. Such soil types are not considered unique geologic features and are common within the geographic area of the City.

Furthermore, the City’s General Plan does not note the existence of any unique geologic features within the City. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to have the potential to result in direct or indirect destruction of unique geologic features.

Although the proposed project would not have the potential to result in the destruction of unique geologic features, paleontological resources could exist within the project site. The City’s General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of Policies CC-3.4.P1 and P2, impacts related to disturbance of paleontological resources would be less than significant. Should previously unknown paleontological resources exist within the project site, ground-disturbing activity, such as grading, trenching or excavating, associated with implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb or destroy such features. Therefore, project-specific Mitigation Measure VII-1 would be required to ensure that the proposed project would not result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure VII-1, which is a standard requirement to address the handling of unexpected paleontological discoveries, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1055
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the SLVSP EIR would apply to the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure 4.2-5: In addition to implementing Policies 6-34 and 6-35 and satisfying the routine requirements expected of any development in the City, individual landowners/developers/ owners should:
x Take the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC) into account when designing and implementing site development x Secure breakable objects or focus work stations away from such potential hazards Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
The following additional project-specific mitigation measure, which has been agreed to by the project applicant, would apply to the proposed project:

VII-1 The applicant shall retain the services of a professional paleontologist to educate the construction crew that will be conducting grading and excavation at the project site. The education shall consist of an introduction to the geology of the project site and the kinds of fossils that may be encountered, as well as what to do in case of a discovery. Should any vertebrate fossils (e.g., teeth, bones), an unusually large or dense accumulation of intact invertebrates, or well-preserved plant material (e.g., leaves) be unearthed by the construction crew, then ground-disturbing activity shall be diverted to another part of the project site and the paleontologist shall be called on-site to assess the find and, if significant, recover the find in a timely matter. Finds determined significant by the paleontologist shall then be conserved and deposited with a recognized repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. The alternative mitigation would be to leave the significant finds in place, determine the extent of significant deposit, and avoid further disturbance of the significant deposit. Proof of the construction crew awareness training shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department in the form of a copy of training materials and the completed training attendance roster.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1056
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
N/A No No No
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gasses?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a,b. Background
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not addressed in the SLVSP EIR. However, potential impacts related to GHG emissions do not constitute “new information of substantial importance” as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as GHG emissions were known as potential environmental issues before 1997, when the original SLVSP EIR was certified.19
CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and governing case law strongly encourage streamlining CEQA analyses by relying on previously certified EIRs. See generally Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 944-46 (citing Pub. Res. Code § 21166 and 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15162). A lead agency may rely on a previously certified EIR, regardless of its age, as long as substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the EIR retains informational value, and the lead agency finds on the basis of substantial evidence that none of the narrow circumstances for supplemental EIRs in Pub. Res. Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 are present. Accordingly, as long as impacts were discussed and analyzed under the methodology required at the time that the EIR was certified, and there are no “substantial changes” to the project or circumstances, or “[n]ew information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified,” a prior EIR remains in force and effect, and an addendum is the appropriate CEQA compliance pathway. Pub. Res. Code § 21166 (emphasis added). For example, in Committee for Re-Evaluation of T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1256, the Court of Appeal affirmed an agency’s 2014 reliance on a 1998 EIR, despite numerous changes that had no doubt occurred to applicable CEQA thresholds in the 16 years since the EIR had been certified.

Were the rule otherwise, plan-level EIRs would age of out of utility shortly after certification, since CEQA thresholds change regularly.

With respect to greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, the Court of Appeal has confirmed more than once that the issue of global climate change is not “new information” that requires subsequent projects to re-analyze impacts under new thresholds that were adopted after the prior EIR was certified. In Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) (“CREED”) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 521, the City of San Diego certified a precise plan EIR in 1994. In 2009, the City approved 19 As explained in a series of cases, more recently in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.

App. 4th 1301. Also see, Citizens of Responsible Equitable Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1057
a planned development within that precise plan area by preparing an addendum to the 1994 precise plan EIR. Ibid. The Court of Appeal affirmed the City’s decision to do so, confirming that “effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate could have been raised in 1994,” and therefore was not “new information” requiring the analysis to be revisited. Id. at 532. Similarly, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1305, the City of Dublin approved a Specific Plan EIR in 2002, and then later approved a project within the Specific Plan project area in 2011. The Court affirmed that Dublin was not required to analyze the 2011 project under GHG thresholds adopted after the 2002 Specific Plan EIR, because “the adoption of guidelines for analyzing and evaluating the significance of data does not constitute new information if the underlying information was otherwise known or should have been known at the time the EIR was certified.” Ibid. at 1320.

Here, since the prior EIR was certified in 1997, three years after the Court of Appeal has held that the effect of GHGs was sufficiently knowable (CREED, 196 Cal.App.4th at 532), the City is not required to analyze impacts under GHG thresholds that were not in effect in 1997.

The City’s commissioned experts and expert planning staff have reviewed the changes to the CEQA thresholds adopted since 1997, and concluded that none of the changes amount to “new information” because the underlying information regarding those topical areas was knowable in 1997. Accordingly, the lead agency is not required to revise or renew analyses under different thresholds that had not been in effect at the time the 1997 EIR was certified.

Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring a conservative approach to analyzing and mitigating environmental impacts, this addendum analysis does analyze greenhouse gas impacts under subsequently adopted CEQA thresholds for informational purposes.

Whether analyzed under prior CEQA thresholds, or under current CEQA thresholds, the approval under consideration does not involve any “substantial changes” to the project or the circumstances, and neither is there new information that could not have been known in 1997 that warrants re-visiting the analysis.

Project-Specific Discussion
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.

Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1058
the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).

The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. While updated CEQA Guidelines have not yet been released, on April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.20 The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 32, and provide qualitative thresholds of significance related to Buildings and Transportation.

BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
According to BAAQMD’s new CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, a project must either include specific project design elements (e.g., exclude use of natural gas, achieve a specific reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average) or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).21
On November 28, 2022, the City of Livermore adopted the updated 2022 CAP, which, according to Section 2 of Appendix D of the CAP, meets the criteria to be a GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the following analysis is based on the proposed project’s consistency with City’s 2022 CAP.

City of Livermore CAP Consistency
The 2022 CAP is intended to create a roadmap to achieve emissions reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and carbon neutrality (i.e., net zero carbon emissions) by 2045. The CAP contains mitigation strategies and actions, consistent with State climate mitigation targets, which were developed to reduce the City’s GHG emissions to reach its adopted reduction targets for 2030 and 2045. The project’s consistency with the applicable mitigation strategies and actions is assessed in Table 5 below. As shown in the table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and actions of the City’s CAP.

Table 5
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
Strategy D-1: Improve water conservation
and reuse.

All landscaping improvements would be consistent
with Section 13.25 of the Municipal Code, Water
Efficient Landscape, and would be irrigated by an
automatic irrigation system. In addition, the project
would use low-flow toilets and shower heads in
guest rooms. Therefore, the proposed project
would generally be consistent with Strategy D-1.

Action D-1.3: Continue implementing the
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

As discussed above, all landscaping improvements
would be consistent with Section 13.25 of the
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed March 2023. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1059
Table 5
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape, and
would be irrigated by an automatic irrigation
system. Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Action D-1.3.

Action F-1.5: Require new hardscape to
be permeable.

Action F-1.5, the City must first update standards
for new development hardscape to be consistent
with CALGreen Tier 1 and/or increase the current
fee for installation of new impervious surfaces. The
City has not yet updated its standards and, thus,
consistency with Action F-1.5 is not required.

Strategy B-1: Require new buildings to be
all-electric and incentivize electrification
retrofits of existing buildings.

As stated on page 55 of the Livermore CAP for
Strategy B-1:

Adopt an electrification ordinance which
requires all new construction to be all-electric.

Conduct a cost-effectiveness study to develop
an ordinance that facilitates both construction
and on-bill cost savings. Minimize the number
of exemptions associated with the ordinance to
limit the number of stranded natural gas lines
in the city. Allow case by case allowances for
certain site development standards when an
applicant can demonstrate infeasibility.

Leverage partnerships with the Building
Decarbonization Coalition, EBCE, StopWaste,
and others, to engage with local building
industry stakeholders in development of the
ordinance.

The City of Livermore has adopted the 2022 Green
Building Standards Code, which includes allelectric building requirements for new construction and a limited number of exceptions. One of the
exceptions is for nonresidential buildings
containing kitchens located in a place of public
accommodation if the local enforcing agency can
find:
a. A business-related need to cook with
combustion equipment; and
b. The need cannot be achieved equivalently
with an electric heating appliance; and
c. The applicant has installed energy efficient
equipment based on Energy Star or
California Energy Wise qualifications, as
available.
d. The applicant shall comply with Section

5.106.13.2.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1060
Table 5
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
According to Executive Chef Rodney Worth,22
there is a business-related need to cook with
combustion equipment and this need cannot be
equivalently achieved with an electric heating
appliance for the following reasons:
x Electric and induction tops have a lag time,
making it difficult to regulate temperatures
while cooking. Temperature regulation is
essential for proper menu execution.
x There is a substantial supply chain
shortage of the equipment required for
cooking on an electric or induction top.

Lack of inventory and ability to replace
equipment when needed is a serious
operational concern that could severely
impact the ability to serve customers.
x Electric and induction tops are
approximately 10x more expensive to
operate and maintain, as well as require
different pots and pans which are also
more expensive to purchase and maintain.

The anticipated costs required with using
electric equipment could affect business
viability.

Action B-1.1: Require new construction to
be all-electric.

See consistency discussion for Strategy B-1.

Action T-1.1: Expand EV infrastructure to
support EV adoption.

The 2022 CBSC requires new developments to
include the necessary electrical infrastructure for
EV charging stations. The proposed project is
anticipated to include 65 paved parking spaces.

Based on the 2022 CBSC, for new hotels/motels
with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms, 10
percent of the total parking spaces are required to
be EV capable, 25 percent of the total parking
spaces are required to be EV ready, and five
percent of the total spaces are required to include
EV service equipment (EVSE), which are installed
charging receptacles or permanently installed
chargers. The proposed project would include
seven EV capable spaces, 15 EV ready spaces,
and two spaces with EVSE equipment installed,
which would be in compliance with the 2022 CBSC.

Therefore, the proposed project would be
consistent with Action T-1.1.

Strategy W-1: Reduce the amount of
waste that is landfilled.

The project would be required to comply with all
applicable provisions of Chapter 8.08, Solid Waste
Management, of the City’s Municipal Code. In
addition, as discussed below, the proposed project
22 Rodney Worth, The Worth Group, Chef & Owner. Letter to Kam Purewal, Planner, City of Livermore, April 24, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1061
Table 5
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
would be required to comply with CALGreen
construction waste diversion standards during
construction of the proposed project. Finally, the
proposed project would implement a number of
sustainable features, including replacing paper
towels with hand linens in the restrooms, which
would help to further reduce waste generation onsite. Therefore, the proposed project would generally be consistent with Strategy W-1.

Action W-1.5: Reduce construction waste. The CALGreen Code requires all new construction projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a
minimum 65 percent of all non-hazardous
construction and demolition waste. The proposed
project would be required to comply with the
CALGreen Code standards, and, therefore, would
be consistent with Action W-1.5.

Source: City of Livermore, 2022.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1062
IX. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
N/A No No No
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
N/A No No No
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
N/A No No No
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?
N/A No No No
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?
N/A No No No
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
N/A No No No
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Pgs. 4.9-25
to 4.9-27 No No No
Discussion
a. Hotel, restaurant, and residential (caretaker’s unit) land uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation of the inn and the caretaker’s unit may use common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount anticipated to be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Similarly, the operations of the restaurant could involve use of cleaning supplies; however, regulations on food handling operations would ensure that any potentially hazardous material would be kept away from food stations and would not interfere with operations of the kitchen. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1063
disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. b. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site does not contain existing habitable structures, and, thus, asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paints do not occur on-site. Features such as septic systems, wells, above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), or other features related to uses of environmental concern have not been identified on the site during geologic or biological surveys. In addition, given that the site has been subject to previous planting of vineyards, the presence of such features within the site is unlikely.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy-duty equipment, which would contain fuels, oils, and hydraulic fluid. In addition, various other products commonly associated with construction such as concrete, paints, and adhesives would be used on-site. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used and transported during construction activities at the project site. However, the project contractors would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Significant risks to the public or workers are not expected with the assumption that such products would be used, transported, and disposed of properly in accordance with the handling instructions on their labels and in accordance with all applicable regulations.

As discussed previously, grape vines are currently grown on the eastern border of the project site, and directly to the south in the Las Positas Vineyard. As such, pesticides and herbicides may have been or are currently used on or within proximity of the site, and the potential exists for on-site soils to be contaminated with organochloride pesticides. Prior to development of the project site, analysis of on-site soils would be required in order to ensure that any existing soil contaminant concentrations are below the direct exposure Environmental Screening Level (ESLs) for commercial and residential development, which measures potential hazards to human health.

Without proper testing of the existing on-site soils prior to development, the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, project-specific Mitigation Measure IX-1, which is a standard requirement for the development of sites formerly used for agricultural purposes, would be required to ensure that organochloride pesticides or other soil contaminants that might be present do not result in potential impacts when soils are disturbed. With implementation of project-specific Mitigation Measure IX-1, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. c. The project site is not located within a quarter mile of any existing or proposed schools.

The nearest school is Sunset Elementary School, located approximately one mile north of the site. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1064
d. Components of the Cortese List include the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database, the list of leaking underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB. The project site is not located on any of the aforementioned components of the Cortese List.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. e. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the site. The site is not covered by an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.
f. The City of Livermore adopted the City of Livermore Emergency Operations Plan in January 2018.24 The plan provides a basis for future responses to a wide range of citywide hazards and vulnerabilities. The plan outlines the general authority, organization, and response actions for City of Livermore staff when disasters occur. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Emergency Plan, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with what has been planned for the site and would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an emergency evacuation or response plan, and the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.
g. According to the SLVSP EIR, the majority of the development area would be surrounded by irrigated agriculture (which would be fire resistant) or by man-made firebreaks such as roadways. However, the SLVSP EIR noted that the eastern lots of Subarea 4 immediately adjacent to the proposed regional park, the southern lots of Subarea 7, and parts of Subarea 6 could be susceptible to wildland fires. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 was included to specifically address wildland fire impacts within Subareas 4, 6, and 7. The SLVSP EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-7, as well as applicable Specific Plan policies would reduce wildland-building fire exposure impacts to less-than-significant levels.

The currently proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development anticipated by the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a large restaurant. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity 23 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed March 2023. 24 City of Livermore. Emergency Operations Plan. January 2018.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1065
Zone or State Responsibility Area.25 Furthermore, given that the project site is within Subarea 5, which was not identified in the SLVSP EIR as a Subarea that is susceptible to wildland fire impacts, Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
The following additional project-specific mitigation measure, which has been agreed to by the project applicant, would apply to the proposed project:

IX-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall complete an analysis of on-site soils to determine whether substantial concentrations of organochloride pesticides or other soil contaminants are present above the applicable direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminants are not detected above applicable ESLs, then further mitigation is not required. If contaminants are detected above the applicable ESLs, then the soils shall be remediated by offhauling to a licensed landfill facility. Such remediation activities shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste contractor (Class A) and contractor personnel that have completed 40-hour OSHA hazardous training. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 25 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Alameda County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. September 3, 2006.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1066
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Pgs. 4.3-24
to 4.3-28 No No No
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Pg. 4.9-14 No No No
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:

Pgs. 4.3-21
to 4.3-24 No No No
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Pg. 4.3-28 No No No
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential to result in impacts to water quality and determined that conversion of land from grassland to residential uses in SLVSP subareas could result in a degradation of the water quality in area creeks and drainageways. The SLVSP EIR noted that any loss of existing wetlands would reduce the ability of the landscape to naturally filter stormwater contaminants that would otherwise be discharged to arroyos within the project region. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that compliance with SLVSP Policies 8-21, and 8-22 through 8-27 would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 Wine Country Inn and Restaurant. As such, impacts to water quality associated with the proposed project were previously considered within the SLVSP EIR. Nonetheless, the following discussion demonstrates how the proposed ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1067
project would not violate water quality standards/waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation.

Construction
During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to grading and excavation of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality downstream.

The SWRCB regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres.

The City’s NPDES permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a SWPPP to be prepared for the site. A SWPPP describes BMPs to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project. Because the proposed project would disturb greater than one acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit.

In addition, the project would be required to comply with Chapter 13.45, Stormwater Management and Control Program, of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes standards for managing stormwater runoff during construction and operation. Per Section

13.45.090, any construction contractor performing work in the City must provide filter materials at the catch basin to retain any debris and dirt flowing into the City’s stormwater system. Furthermore, groundwater was not encountered during exploratory borings conducted on the project site; such borings were advanced to a depth of 25 feet. Thus, ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the proposed project, including grading and trenching for utilities, would not require dewatering. As such, groundwater would not be impacted during construction activities.

Therefore, the proposed project would not discharge sediment or urban pollutants through soil erosion, violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.

Operation
The proposed inn, restaurant, and caretaker’s unit would not involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Thus, typical operations on the project site would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade water quality.

A Preliminary Stormwater Quality Control Plan26 has been prepared for the proposed project that demonstrates the project’s compliance with the most recent Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance,27 as well as all applicable City stormwater requirements. In compliance with the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, the proposed project would divide the site into three drainage management areas (DMAs), as shown in Figure 7.
26 CBG Civil Engineers. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan Livermore Wine Country Inn. April 2019. 27 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. October 31, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1068
Stormwater on the site within DMA 1 and DMA 2 would be directed to one of two bioretention planters located in each respective DMA. Each bio-retention planter would be sized to provide sufficient treatment area to accommodate potential flows from the areas within the DMA. Both bio-retention planters would connect to a new 15-inch storm drain which would carry treated stormwater to the City’s existing 18-inch storm drain located in Hansen Road.

DMA 3 would consist solely of a landscaped area. The landscaped areas within DMA 3 would be self-treating and would minimize the rate of stormwater runoff from landscaping areas by allowing stormwater to percolate into the topsoil, which would act as natural treatment for stormwater runoff as well.

Based on the above, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, and would meet or exceed C.3 Standards. Therefore, during operation, the project would comply with all relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and would not degrade water quality.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, through required compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b,e. It should be noted that the SLVSP EIR did not expressly address the SLVSP’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, the SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and concluded buildout of the SLVSP would result in a less-thansignificant impact. In determining the conclusion, the SLVSP EIR noted that Zone 7 is in charge of the management of groundwater within the region, and pumping of groundwater takes place only upon Zone 7’s authorization. According to the SLVSP, although implementation of the Specific Plan would increase demand for water, Zone 7 would not enhance the water supply of the region by permanently depleting the groundwater basin.

As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that a less than significant impact would occur.

Water supplies in the central and southern portions of the City of Livermore, including the project site, are provided by California Water Service (Cal Water). According to the Cal Water 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the Livermore District, the water supply is derived from a combination of groundwater and surface water purchased from Zone 7 Water Agency. Groundwater currently accounts for approximately 30 percent of the District’s water supplies.28 The percentage of water demand met with groundwater supplies is expected to decrease over time as the District grows and increases in demand are served by purchases of surface water supplies. Groundwater supplies are drafted from the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, an un-adjudicated basin. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is addressed by the Zone 7 Groundwater Management Plan (2005 GMP).29
28 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Livermore District [pg. 48]. June 2021. 29 Zone 7 Water Agency. Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin.

September 2005.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1069
Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016 defines 517 groundwater basins and subbasins in California. According to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Department of Water Resources is required to prioritize the 517 groundwater basins and subbasins as either High, Medium, Low, or Very Low. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin is considered Medium Priority per the DWR.30 In addition, the DWR has not identified the Basin as either in overdraft or expected to be in overdraft.

The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 Wine Country Inn and Restaurant. As such, water demand associated with the proposed project was previously considered within the SLVSP EIR. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations. The project would not result in increased use of groundwater supplies beyond what has been anticipated by the City and accounted for in the UWMP. Per the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand for normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios through 2040. 31 Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
c.i-iii. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential to impact site peak flow rates, and determined that grading, construction of impervious surfaces, and installation of a storm drain system would substantially increase peak flow rates from the SLVSP subareas, which could exceed the capacities of downstream culverts and induce shallow localized flooding of properties and roadways. However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Specific Plan Policies 8-19 through 8-22, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above, the project is required to comply with C.3 Standards. Specifically, post-project stormwater discharge rates and durations may not exceed pre-project discharge rates and durations. Compliance with C.3 Standards would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project does not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain infrastructure, cause flooding on- or off-site, or result in off-site erosion or siltation after development of the site.

As discussed previously and demonstrated in Figure 7, the proposed project has been designed to incorporate operational design features that would provide on-site stormwater treatment. Specifically, on-site stormwater treatment would be provided by the proposed bio-retention areas located on the western and southeastern portions of the project site.

As shown in Figure 7, the bio-retention areas would be adequately sized to handle stormwater runoff from all areas within the project site. Thus, development of the project site would not contribute substantial amounts of stormwater.

The proposed project would be implemented within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 component of the SLVSP, and would result in similar development as what was anticipated in the SLVSP EIR. However, in contrast with the original 30 Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization [Table A1]. January 2019. 31 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Livermore District. June 2021.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1070
assumptions for the site, the proposed project would incorporate pervious hardscapes in compliance with the City’s CAP, which would result in a reduction in on-site runoff compared to what was analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
c.iv, d. According to the SLVSP EIR, development within the mapped inundation area of Del Valle Dam could subject existing and future residents within the downstream inundation zone to a life-threatening flood hazard. Specifically, structures and properties in the mapped inundation area of Subareas 5, 6, and 7 could be flooded with little or no warning due to the projected rapid progression of the resulting flood wave (five minutes from failure), thus posing a hazard to public safety and property. While the risk of such a failure is less than the probability of a 100-year flood, the SLVSP EIR noted that the severe consequences attending dam failure occurrence override the risk assessment alone. Policies 8-17 and 8-18 of the Specific Plan were determined to partially mitigate flood hazards posed by failure of the Del Valle Dam. However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that additional measures are not feasible to reduce flood hazards to a less-than-significant level, and, thus, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 Wine Country Inn and Restaurant. As shown on Exhibit

4.3-7 of the SLVSP EIR, the project site is located outside of the mapped inundation area of Subarea 5, and, therefore, would not be subject to risks associated with potential failure of Del Valle Dam.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map number 06001C0344G, the project site is located within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X).32 The site is not classified as a Special Flood Hazard Area or otherwise located within a 100-year or 500-year floodplain. In addition, given the site is not located in proximity to a coastline or near a large closed body of water, the risk of tsunamis, flooding, or seiches is low to negligible at the project site.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.
32 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0344G. Effective August 3, 2009.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1071
XI. LAND USE AND
PLANNING.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Physically divide an established
community?
Pgs. 4.1-43
to 4.1-45 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.1-45
to 4.1-47 No No No
Discussion
a. According to the SLVSP EIR, although the SLVSP would cause direct growth within the SLVSP area, a major goal of the Specific Plan is to establish a permanent urban boundary for the south edge of the City. As such, policies in the SLVSP in conjunction with existing conditions were determined to ensure a less-than-significant impact would occur.

The currently proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site. Furthermore, the currently proposed project would be built within the footprint of the previously analyzed Site 5D2, and would be consistent with the type and size of inn and restaurant anticipated for development on the site within the SLVSP. The proposed project does not include any linear features, such as roads, walls, or railroad lines, that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an established community.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR and would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b. Under Impact 4.1-4, the SLVSP EIR evaluated compatibility of adjacent uses within the Specific Plan area. As noted on page 4.1-29:

SLVSPA commercial sites would differ in character from neighborhood and community commercial uses developed elsewhere in Livermore. The sites would cater primarily to visitors and tourists and would include commercial retail, food and lodging, and quasi-industrial uses. Such uses are not necessarily incompatible with residential uses, although in conventional suburban areas they normally are segregated from residential areas. In the SLVSPA, the commercial sites would be located at the perimeter of residential development areas and would have direct access from areawide roads, thus separate from residential streets serving the subareas. Commercial sites would generate traffic and noise due to operations (wineries, kitchens at restaurants, and vehicular noise in parking lot, loading docks, trash disposal areas, etc.). Such conflicts are examined in the appropriate topical sections of the EIR.

Thus, the SLVSP EIR rightly notes that land use compatibility, from a CEQA perspective, primarily pertains to physical environmental issues such as generation of noise, dust, light and glare, etc. These topics are evaluated throughout this Addendum, and it can be shown that the proposed project is consistent in scope with what the SLVSP EIR evaluated for Commercial Site 5D2, and no new significant impacts or substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur as a result of the project.

It is also noted that since the original SLVSP EIR analysis and certification of the EIR (1997), new residential development has occurred in Subarea 5. At the time the SLVSP ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1072
EIR was certified, the nearest residential development was located approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the project site. By 2002, construction of residences located approximately 700 feet east of the site began, and by 2004, the nearest residential development to the project site was constructed approximately 300 feet east of the project site’s northern boundary. Additional residences have not been constructed within the project area since 2004. Nonetheless, the residential development is located a sufficient distance from the project site so as not to alter the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR for Impact 4.1-4, which found that less than significant compatibility impacts would result.

As previously discussed, this addendum includes analysis of the potential effects associated with a text amendment to Specific Plan Policy 4-7. As demonstrated in Section I, Aesthetics, the proposed text amendment to SLVSP Policy 4-7 to clarify that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road for Site 5D1 and Site 5D2 would not alter the lessthan-significant conclusion in the SLVSP EIR related to aesthetics effects of commercial development within Subarea 5. There is no indication in the SLVSP EIR or the SLVSP itself that Policy 4-7 was adopted to avoid or reduce any otherwise significant aesthetic or land use compatibility impact. As previously mentioned, Hansen Road is not identified as a scenic route by the City, the prototypical site plan included in the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2 already depicted a setback from Hansen Road less than 100 feet, and the findings of the Visual Significance Matrix included in the SLVSP EIR, and shown previously, remain applicable for both Site 5D1 and 5D2. Further, as discussed in the Aesthetics section, the allowance of parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure within 100 feet of Hansen Road would not result in an adverse aesthetic effect such that the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR would change. The visual dominance for line and form, likely the most relevant factors when considering aesthetic effects of a structure’s proximity to a roadway, is already considered Dominant for commercial development in Subarea 5 by the SLVSP EIR, and yet, the analysis concluded that the proposed 30-room inn and restaurant would have a less-than-significant aesthetic impact due to low sensitivity of the views at this location with respect to line and form.

While as noted above there has been residential development closer to the project site since the adoption of the SLVSP, those residences and the inn were long planned for their respective sites in the SLVSP. Anyone building or purchasing a home in the SLVSP area could review the adopted plan and note the designations of Site 5D1 for a commercial center and Site 5D2 for a future inn and restaurant. Moreover, before residences in the vicinity of the proposed project were constructed, in 2001, the City adopted PUD Permit #165, Amendment #01-001, which sets forth the development standards (i.e., zoning regulations) specific to the Project site. For Sites 5D1 and 5D2, the PUD Permit specifies that setbacks from Hansen Road shall be 50 feet. Thus, the currently proposed project, including the requested amendment to SLVSP Policy 4-7, will be consistent with the PUD Permit.

There are no other environmental considerations that need to be addressed in this addendum with respect to the proposed setback along Hansen Road for Sites 5D1 and 5D2. For example, while the building on Site 5D2 would be located closer to Hansen Road and could be subject to increased traffic noise levels, the noise effects of the surrounding environment on the project site or its patrons are beyond the scope of CEQA review, which is focused on the physical effects of the project on the surrounding environment.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1073
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1074
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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?
Pgs. 4.2-35
to 4.2-36 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.2-35
to 4.2-36 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The Livermore Formation, which underlies much of the SLVSP area, is a source of commercial aggregate materials. As such, according to the SLVSP, the State Mining and Geology Board has classified parts of Subareas 2, 3, and 5 as MRZ-2, which are areas where information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or have a high likelihood of being present. However, the Livermore Formation is relatively extensive within the region. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR determined that the development of the SLVSP within a portion of the Livermore Formation would not represent a detrimental loss of resources to the local community, as other, more proven sources of aggregate resources are available elsewhere.

Currently, the site is vacant and undeveloped, with grape vines on the eastern border of the site, and is not used for mining of mineral resources. In addition, the currently proposed project would be implemented within the previously analyzed footprint of the SLVSP EIR.

As such, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1075
XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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?
Pgs. 4.7-
10; 4.7-14
to 4.7-17
No No No
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? N/A No No No
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?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established by the City of Livermore, and concluded that while long-term increases in traffic noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-3 would be required to ensure impacts related to noise generated by commercial uses within the SLVSP area, specifically the olive press in Subarea 4, would be reduced to less than significant. The SLVSP also determined that while Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 would help to reduce construction noise within Subareas 3 and 5, noise levels would still potentially exceed existing ambient levels during certain times of construction, and, therefore, short-term noise impacts during construction would remain significant and unavoidable.

The following provides a discussion of noise associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Noise
The SLVSP EIR’s analysis of potential noise impacts associated with buildout of the SLVSP accounted for noise generated during construction activities. Implementation of the proposed project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. According to the SLVSP, construction activities in Subarea 5 would adjoin existing residential neighborhoods contiguous on the west. Construction activities associated with residential development include grading, excavation work, pouring of foundations, and framing and finishing of structures. Infrastructure work would also include building new roadways and installing utilities. Such construction activities typically generate noise levels ranging from 75 to 85 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Constructionrelated noise would drop off at the rate of about six decibels (6 dBA) with each doubling of the distance. Therefore, construction noise levels would fluctuate widely during the buildout period and occasionally and intermittently would exceed existing ambient noise levels substantially at adjacent neighbors' homes.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1076
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site would be the single-family residences located northwest of the site, approximately 240 feet away from the project site. Thus, there are no residential receptors adjacent to the project site and noise levels experienced at the nearest residences would likely be reduced by at least 13.2 dB, resulting in a maximum noise level exposure of 71.8 dB.

The proposed project would not cause any additional construction noise that would exceed what was already evaluated in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, additional noise control mitigation measures would not be required for construction noise, beyond those already outlined in the SLVSP EIR, and proposed project would not result in any changes, new circumstances, or new information that would involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts from what has been anticipated for the SLVSP. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 would still be applicable to the proposed project.

Project Operational Noise
According to the SLVSP EIR, noise associated with operations of the SLVSP would include traffic noise on local roadways as well as noise associated with new commercial development.

Traffic noise level increases associated with the SLVSP were determined by comparing existing traffic volumes on the roadway segments with future traffic volumes with and without SLVSP development. On most roadway segments, Ldn noise levels were determined to increase by approximately one decibel (dBA) with or without SLVSP development. Noise levels along Wetmore Road were projected to increase by four dBA with SLVSPA buildout and by two to three dBA without SLVSP buildout. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR determined that most of the increase would result from other development outside the SLVSP area. In addition, noise levels were projected to decrease noticeably along Arroyo Road and South Livermore Avenue with or without SLVSP development due to a drop in traffic volumes associated with the planned completion of an Isabel Avenue Extension, which would reroute commute traffic away from local streets and change traffic patterns in the project area. Thus, the SLVSP EIR determined that longterm noise from project-generated traffic sources would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 344 total daily trips. The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed project by TJKM Transportation Consultants estimated that traffic volumes on Hansen Road, adjacent to the project site, consist of 63 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour (thus an average of roughly one vehicle every 57 seconds) and 47 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour (thus an average of one vehicle every 78 seconds). With the addition of project traffic, existing plus project traffic volumes on Hansen Road adjacent to the project site is estimated to consist of a total of 77 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour (thus one vehicle per 47 seconds on average), and 84 vehicles during the p.m. peak hour (thus one vehicle every 43 seconds on average). Generation of this level of traffic throughout the course of the peak periods would not be anticipated to result in a noticeable increase in vehicle noise along nearby roadways.

With regard to noise associated with the proposed inn and restaurant, according to Impact 4.7-3 of the SLVSP EIR, each of the commercial sites located within Subarea 5 (including the project site) would be buffered from existing or proposed residential development by agricultural open space areas. As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1077
significant noise impacts on existing or future residents would not result from development of commercial sites within Subarea 5. In reaching this conclusion, the SLVSP EIR (pg. 4.7-15) refers to the prototypical site plans included in the SLVSP which show buffering from existing or future residents. As previously discussed, the prototypical site plan for Commercial Site 5D2 includes a buffer/setback less than 100 feet from Hansen Road and a 100-foot buffer from Arroyo Road. The proposed project is consistent with the prototypical layout, and thus, the currently proposed project’s commercial-related noise impacts were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR, which identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, and assumes the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. The proposed project would not include any operations that are atypical for the anticipated hotel or restaurant use and outdoor events would not be held at the inn. Thus, on-site operational noise would be primarily limited to parking lot activities and guests entering and exiting the building.

Consistent with the applicant’s proposal, the City will condition the project to prohibit any outdoor events. It should also be noted that while noise at the proposed trash enclosure, within the 50-foot setback, may be generated due to garbage trucks during pickup times, the closest residence is approximately 230 feet from the enclosure. Policy P1 of the City’s General Plan requires that industrial and commercial uses be designed and operated so as to avoid the generation of noise effects on surrounding sensitive land uses from exceeding 55 dBA L50 from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and 45 dBA L50 from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Operation of a garbage truck for the approximately two minutes it takes to dump a dumpster, combined with the sound of the dumpster banging and possible use of backup alarms, would be approximately 85 dBA Lmax at seven meters, with an estimated noise level of approximately 36 dBA L50 at a distance of 230 feet.33 As a result, the proposed trash enclosure service would not result in noise levels in excess of the noise level standards set by General Plan Policy P1.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any additional operational noise that would exceed what was already anticipated in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, additional noise control mitigation measures would not be required for operational noise, beyond those already outlined in the SLVSP EIR, and proposed project would not result in any changes, new circumstances, or new information that would involve new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were anticipated for the SLVSP.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. 33 Saxelby, Luke, Principal Consultant at Saxelby Acoustics. Personal Communication [email] with Nick Pappani, Vice President, Raney Planning & Management, Inc. April 26, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1078
Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 6, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures.

Table 6
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
mm/sec in/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.15 to

0.30 0.006 to

0.019
Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and
ancient monuments should be
subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and
subjected to relative short periods
of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk
of “architectural” damage to
normal dwelling - houses with
plastered walls and ceilings.

Special types of finish such as
lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10 to 15 0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant
by people subjected to
continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic,
but would cause “architectural”
damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.

As shown in the table, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.

The proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Although noise and vibration associated with the construction phase of the project would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity, construction activities would be temporary in nature and occur during normal daytime working hours. Because the proposed project would not cause continuous, long-term vibrations, the project would not be expected to result in extended annoyance to the nearby sensitive receptors.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1079
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading, placement of utilities, and construction of foundations. Table 7 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors. Use of vibratory compactors/rollers could be required during construction of the proposed parking and circulation area, which would extend along the northern, eastern, and western sides of the project site.

Table 7
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) PPV at 50 feet (in/sec) Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.029
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.025
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.029
Jackhammer 0.035 0.011
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.023
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.070
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Operation of vibratory compactors/rollers used for construction of the proposed internal roadway would operate at a distance of 240 feet or further from the nearest existing residential structure. Thus, per the vibration levels shown in Table 7, groundborne vibrations would be less than 0.070 in/sec PPV, which would be below the 0.10 in/sec PPV threshold established by Caltrans for annoyance to sensitive receptors.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.
c. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the site. The site is not covered by an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure(s) from the SLVSP EIR would apply to the proposed project:

Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: The City should impose the following measures as conditions of approval for individual development projects in Subareas 3 and 5 in order to minimize construction noise during development and to substantially lessen the significance of the impacts:
x Construction Scheduling Limit noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the project site for any purpose, to daytime, weekday, nonholiday hours from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM as specified in Livermore Municipal Code Section

9.36.08. ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1080
x Construction Equipment Mufflers and Maintenance Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. x Idling Prohibitions Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. x Equipment Location Shielding Locate all stationary noise-generating construction equipment (such as air compressors) as far as practical from existing nearby residences. x Quiet Equipment Selection Select quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever possible.
x Notification Notify neighbors located within 500 feet of the construction site of the construction schedule in writing.
x Noise Disturbance Coordinator 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 complaint (such as starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require implementation of reasonable measures to correct the problem. Conspicuously post the disturbance coordinator's telephone number at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors providing the construction schedule.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1081
XIV. POPULATION AND
HOUSING.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of
major infrastructure)?
Pgs. 4.1-43
to 4.1-45 No No No
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. According to the SLVSP EIR, although the Specific Plan would cause direct growth within the SLVSP area, a major goal of the Specific Plan is to establish a permanent urban boundary for the south edge of the City. With regard to indirect population growth due to the extension of infrastructure, the SLVSP noted that due to topography, infrastructure built in the SLVSP area could not be used for future development in some locations beyond the subareas, and extension of infrastructure in areas where topography would not be a constraint would not be facilitated by the SLVSP. In addition, the SLVSP EIR further noted that new roadways in the SLVSP are unlikely to create any growth-inducing impacts, as new major roadways would not be constructed to serve development. Any new roadways would be sized and located to serve development within the subareas, and internal roadways would not extend or "stub out" next to adjacent undeveloped land. As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Specific Plan Policies, in conjunction with the existing conditions of the SLVSP area, significant growth-inducing impacts would not occur.

The proposed project would include the development of an inn, restaurant, and caretaker’s unit on a site long designated for these specific commercial uses. Development of the site for the inn and restaurant would not result in direct population growth by proposing new homes. However, the development of the caretaker’s unit would introduce three bedrooms, which could possibly introduce new residents to the area. The maximum number of occupants in the caretaker’s unit would be incremental and would not impact existing facilities. The proposed project would include connection to existing City utility infrastructure and would not result in the need for expansion of services. In addition, the SLVSP has accounted for development of commercial uses within Subarea 5D and has allocated 94 dwelling units to the region. Given the consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan and SLVSP land use designations and the zoning designation for the site, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b. The project site is currently vacant and does not include existing housing or other habitable structures. As such, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1082
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1083
XV. 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:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Fire protection? Pgs. 4.9-23
to 4.9-25
No No No
b. Police protection? Pgs.4.9-29
to 4.9-30
No No No
c. Schools? Pg. 4.9-40 No No No
d. Parks? Pg. 4.9-36 No No No
e. Other Public Facilities? Pgs. 4.9-42
to 4.9-43
No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection and concluded that a less-thansignificant impact would occur. According to the SLVSP EIR, the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) would provide fire protection services to the SLVSP area, and would meet response time criteria to calls within all Subareas of the SLVSP. The SLVSP EIR also noted that development of the SLVSP would not require additional staff or equipment for structural fires or for emergency medical service.

The currently proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed SLVSP. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station #9, located at 1919 Cordoba Street, approximately one mile from the project site. The LPFD maintains ten fire stations and is staffed by approximately 100 fire suppression staff. The LPFD operates a total of 52 vehicles. The SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a large restaurant. As such, demand associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR. In addition, the proposed project would be required to install appropriate fire suppression systems in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and the California Fire Code requirements. The proposed project also includes connection of a new six-inch fire service line to the City’s existing water line, which would connect to fire sprinkler systems in each guest room and would reduce the risk of fire.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b. The City of Livermore Police Department (LPD) would provide police services to the SLVSP area. According to the SLVSP EIR, Subareas 1 and 2 are located in the southeast ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1084
quadrant of the LPD service area, and Subareas 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are located in the southwest quadrant of the LPD service area. Based on a factor of 1.25 sworn officers and

0.7 civilian personnel per 1,000 new residents, and an estimated SLVSP area population of 4,160, the SLVSP EIR concluded that development of the Specific Plan could generate a demand for 5.2 additional sworn officers and 2.9 non-sworn positions. As such, based on correspondence with the City’s Police Chief, the SLVSP EIR noted that the LPD would need a minimum of six new officers to be able to add a new beat to the City with three shifts per day (three officers on duty and three back-up off-duty officers). Nonetheless, with implementation of Specific Plan Policies 7-14 and 7-15, which would require coordination with the LPD to ensure the department adequately plans for expansion, and require the City to provide additional police personnel, as necessary, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts resulting from increased demand on police services would be less than significant.

The City’s Police Department headquarters is located at 1197 South Livermore Avenue, approximately three miles from the project site. The SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumes the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As such, demand associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
c. According to the SLVSP EIR, based on development of approximately 1,494 housing units at buildout, implementation of the Specific Plan would add 493 elementary school, 239 middle school, and 314 high school students to Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) enrollment. As such, the SLVSP determined that buildout under the Specific Plan would require expansion of LVJUSD facilities to meet increased enrollment.

However, the expansion (i.e., the construction of a school in Subarea 3) was included as part of the Specific Plan, and the physical effects of a new school were analyzed within the SLVSP EIR. As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of the LVJUSD is funded primarily through School Impact Mitigation Development Fees, which the proposed project would be required to pay. Proposition 1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving …the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996(b)).

Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” As such, the possible increase in students to the surrounding schools from the caretaker’s unit would not be substantial, and would be compensated for through payment of the appropriate fee School Impact Mitigation Development Fees.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
d. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to increased demand on parks and determined that development of the SLVSP area with 1,492 residential units could result in a new ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1085
population at buildout of approximately 4,160 people, which would generate demand for approximately 8.3 acres of neighborhood parks, and 62.4 acres of new regional parks. A new community park would not be required. The Specific Plan included development of a

12.5-acre neighborhood park in Subarea 2, four acres of neighborhood park distributed among Subareas 1, 4, and 5, and 112.3 acres of new regional parkland in the eastern hillsides of Subarea 4 (32.3 acres) and along arroyos and drainages in Subarea 7 (80.0 acres). Therefore, the SLVSP determined that LARPD park standards would be met with development of the SLVSP, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include the development of an inn and restaurant on a site designated for such uses. Given the commercial nature of the proposed project, the project would not result in substantial population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or necessitate the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. While the proposed project would include the development of one caretaker’s unit, the possible increase in demand on parks from the caretaker’s unit would not be substantial. In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay a park facilities fee. The amount of the fee would be calculated based on Section 12.60.050 of the Municipal Code. The park facilities fee would be used to fund park facilities within the City, including land for public parks and capital improvements necessary to provide park and recreation services.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
e. Other public facilities analyzed within the SLVSP EIR included public libraries. According to the SLVSP EIR, cumulative development in Livermore would require the expansion of the Library system. However, the project's individual impacts to libraries were not determined to be considerable. As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include the development of an inn and restaurant on a site designated for such uses. Given the commercial nature of the proposed project, the project would not result in substantial population growth that could result in increased demand on existing library facilities or necessitate the construction or expansion of new facilities. While the proposed project would include the development of one caretaker’s unit, the possible increase in demand on libraries from the caretaker’s unit would not be substantial. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1086
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Where Impact Was
Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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?
Pgs. 4.9-36
to 4.9-38 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.9-36
to 4.9-38 No No No
Discussion
a,b. As discussed above, the SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to increased demand on parks and determined that development of the SLVSP area with 1,492 residential units could result in a new population at buildout of approximately 4,160 people, which would generate demand for approximately 8.3 acres of neighborhood parks, and 62.4 acres of new regional parks. A new community park would not be required. The Specific Plan included development of a 12.5-acre neighborhood park in Subarea 2, four acres of neighborhood park distributed among Subareas 1, 4, and 5, and 112.3 acres of new regional parkland in the eastern hillsides of Subarea 4 (32.3 acres) and along arroyos and drainages in Subarea 7 (80.0 acres). Therefore, the SLVSP determined that LARPD park standards would be met with development of the SLVSP. In addition, the SLVSP EIR determined that trail alignments in the Specific Plan would be consistent with adopted and proposed trail plans within the City, and that proposed recreational facilities within the SLVSP area would not conflict with residential uses. As such, the SLVSP EIR determined that all impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.

The proposed project would include the development of an inn and restaurant on a site designated for such uses. Given the commercial nature of the proposed project, the project would not result in substantial population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or necessitate the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. While the proposed project would include the development of one caretaker’s unit, the possible increase in demand on parks from the caretaker’s unit would not be substantial. In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay a park facilities fee. The amount of the fee would be calculated based on Section 12.60.050 of the Municipal Code. The park facilities fee would be used to fund park facilities within the City, including land for public parks and capital improvements necessary to provide park and recreation services.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1087
Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1088
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
Pgs. 4.5-39
to 4.5-71 No No No
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
N/A No No Yes
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
N/A No No No
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Pgs. 4.9-27
to 4.9-28 No No No
Discussion
a. The SLVSP EIR performed a level of service (LOS) analysis for several roadway segments and intersections within the project vicinity. However, the law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA.

Traditionally, lead agencies used LOS to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”34
Subdivision (c) of Section 15064.3 (Applicability) states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in Section 15007. A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” (Italics added) CEQA Guidelines Section 15007, subdivision (b), provides that “[a]mendments to the Guidelines apply prospectively only. New requirements in amendments will apply to steps in the CEQA process not yet undertaken by the date when agencies must comply with the amendments.” (Italics added) Subdivision (c) adds that “[i]f a document meets the content requirements in effect when the document is sent out for public review, the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements in Guideline amendments taking effect before 34 Subdivision (b)(2) of section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.” ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1089
the document is finally approved.” These provisions, read together with Section 15064.3, subdivision (c), make it clear that the VMT requirement did not apply to Draft EIRs issued before July 1, 2020. And where a Draft EIR has been issued prior to July 1st, the Final EIR need not address the issue either. This position was articulated by Jeannie Lee, legal counsel in the Governor’s OPR, in publicly broadcast webcasts in 2020. In addition, VMT guidance by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") specifically confirms that when relying on an EIR prepared before the introduction of VMT analysis, the lead agency may use its discretion to conclude that VMT analysis is not required for projects consistent with the earlier EIR (see https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html). OPR’s guidance reflects the fact that the agency construes VMT as a new standard to be phased in over time for new environmental analysis, rather than as a policy that invalidates the many prior EIRs previously certified under then-applicable thresholds of significance.

Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses has ceased to exist, except (at agencies’ discretion) with respect to transportation projects.

EIRs for land use projects such as the SVLSP are therefore not required to address LOS issues, and “automobile delay,” as described in terms of LOS, “shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment.” This Addendum, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), represents a very late stage in the CEQA process that follows long after the issuance of a draft program EIR. The new VMT requirement, then, does not apply to this Addendum. Here, the EIR at issue was drafted in 1997, more than two decades before the VMT requirement took effect statewide.

Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring a conversative approach to analyzing and mitigating environmental impacts, this addendum analysis does proceed to analyze both LOS and VMT impacts. Whether analyzed under prior CEQA thresholds, or under current CEQA thresholds, the approval under consideration does not involve any “substantial changes” to the project or the circumstances, and neither is there new information that could not have been known in 1997 that warrants re-visiting the analysis.

The following sections provide a discussion regarding impacts to LOS, as well as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.

Level of Service
TJKM traffic consultants prepared a Traffic Impact Study to analyze potential transportation impacts related to implementation of the proposed project in August 2019.35 Given that the Traffic Impact Study was prepared before the COVID-19 pandemic, it is reasonable to rely on it for evaluation purposes as traffic levels in many locations are only recently beginning to approach pre-pandemic levels.

Study Intersections
The following five study intersections were selected for analysis based on the project location, local travel patterns, and review by City staff:

1. Arroyo Road and Hansen Road;

2. Arroyo Road and Wetmore Road;

3. Talinga Drive and Wetmore Road;

4. Vallecitos Road-Holmes Street and Wetmore Road; and
35 TJKM. Traffic Impact Study Livermore Wine Country Inn. August 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1090

5. Hansen Road and Project Driveway.

The location of each study intersection is shown in Figure 8.

Study Scenarios
The assessment of potential traffic impacts is based on a comparison of AM and PM peak hour traffic conditions under the following four scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions: This scenario assesses the existing bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation conditions, and describes existing transit service within walking distance of the site.

2. Existing Plus Project Conditions: This scenario evaluates potential impacts of the project trips to the surrounding transportation network, as well as potential transportation impacts that could result from proposed physical improvements under the proposed project.

3. Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions: In this scenario, an annual growth rate of two percent is applied to the existing conditions without adding project generated trips.

4. Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions: This scenario evaluates potential impacts of the project trips to the surrounding transportation network under the previous scenario, as well as potential transportation impacts that could result from proposed physical improvements under the proposed project.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Traffic impacts on the study intersections were quantified through the determination of level of service (LOS), a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream. The thresholds include six levels of service defined for each type of facility (i.e. roadway or intersection) analyzed. LOS has letter designations ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing free flow traffic with little or no delay and LOS F representing jammed conditions with excessive delay and long back-ups. Procedures for analyzing each type of facility are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM methods for calculating LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections are described below.

Significant Impact Criteria
According to the City’s General Plan, the intersection LOS standard is mid-level D (up to 45 seconds of average vehicle delay), except in the Downtown Area and near freeway interchanges where LOS E is acceptable. The intersection standard for all-way stopcontrolled intersections is mid-level E (up to 45 seconds of average vehicle delay). The intersection standard for one-way or two-way stop-controlled intersections is up to 90 seconds of average delay for the critical movement. A signalized or all-way stop-controlled intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS would experience a significant impact if the addition of project traffic would increase the average delay by five seconds or more, and project traffic increases the overall v/c value by 0.03 or more or the critical v/c value by 0.05 or more. A one-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection already operating at an unacceptable LOS would experience a significant impact if the addition of project traffic increases the critical v/c value by 0.05 or more.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1091
Figure 8
Study Intersections
Source: TJKM, July 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1092
Project Trip Generation
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). Based on the ITE trip generation data, the project is forecasted to generate 14 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 37 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, and 344 daily vehicle trips. The trip generation forecast is summarized in Table 8.

Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Analysis TJKM evaluated existing traffic conditions at the study intersections during both AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday. Intersection turning movement counts of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians were collected during the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) on Tuesday, March 26, 2019.

Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections are operating acceptably based on City of Livermore standards during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 9). Average delay does not exceed mid-level C at any study intersections. Motorists experience the longest delay during both peak hours at the intersection of Vallecitos Road-Holmes Street and Wetmore Road.

The peak hour LOS at each study intersection under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions is shown in Table 9. As shown in the table, with the addition of trips generated by the proposed project, each of the study intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS as under Existing Conditions, and would continue operating acceptably based on City of Livermore LOS D/E standards during both the AM and PM peak hours. Average vehicle delay is not expected to exceed mid-level D at any study intersection. Average delay would increase by less than one-half second at each study intersection. Therefore, the proposed project would not reduce the level of service at any intersection in the vicinity of the project site below the acceptable mid-level D threshold.

Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Analysis
Table 10 compares the LOS conditions at study intersections under the Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions and Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions. As shown in the table, under Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions, all study intersections would continue to operate acceptably based on City of Livermore LOS D/E standards, during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 8
Project Vehicle Trip Generation Summary
Land
Use
ITE
Code Size
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total
Bed and
Breakfast 320 30
Rooms 3.35 101 0.38 4 7 11 0.38 6 5 11
Restaurant 931 90 Seats 2.6 234 0.02 2 0 2 0.28 17 8 25 Caretaker’s
Unit 210
1 Dwelling
Unit

9.44 9 0.74 0 1 1 0.9 1 0 1
Total Vehicle Trips 344 6 8 14 24 13 37
Source: TJKM, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1093
Table 9
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
ID
Study
Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Existing
Conditions
Existing Plus
Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Arroyo Road and
Hansen Road
Side-Street
Stop
AM 15.1 C 15.1 C
PM 17.8 C 17.4 C
2 Arroyo Road and
Wetmore Road All-Way Stop AM 8.6 A 8.6 A
PM 12.4 B 12.7 B
3 Talinga Drive and
Wetmore Road
Side-Street
Stop
AM 9.6 A 9.6 A
PM 9.3 A 9.3 A
4 Vallecitos RoadHolmes Street and
Wetmore Road
Signal AM 22.6 C 22.7 C
PM 15.1 B 15.3 B
5 Hansen Road and
Project Driveway
Side-Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 8.6 A
PM N/A N/A 8.5 A
Notes: Average intersection delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and allway stop controlled intersections. Total control delay for the worst approach is presented for sidestreet stop controlled intersections.

Source: TJKM, 2019.

Table 10
Cumulative (2040) No Project and Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Intersection Level of Service
ID
Study
Intersection Control
Peak
Hour
Cumulative
(2040) No
Project
Conditions
Cumulative
(2040) Plus
Project
Conditions
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Arroyo Road and
Hansen Road
Side-Street
Stop
AM 21.5 C 22.1 C
PM 30.9 D 31.5 D
2 Arroyo Road and
Wetmore Road
All-Way
Stop
AM 10.1 B 10.1 B
PM 26.4 D 28.1 D
3 Talinga Drive and
Wetmore Road
Side-Street
Stop
AM 10.7 B 10.7 B
PM 9.8 A 9.8 A
4 Vallecitos RoadHolmes Street and
Wetmore Road
Signal AM 29.8 C 30.3 C
PM 23.0 C 23.5 C
5 Hansen Road and
Project Driveway
Side-Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 8.7 A
PM N/A N/A 8.5 A
Notes:
x Average intersection delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections and allway stop controlled intersections. Average control delay for the worst approach is presented for side-street stop-controlled intersections.

Source: TJKM, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1094
With the addition of trips generated by the proposed project, all of the study intersections that operate acceptably under the Cumulative (2040) No Project Conditions would continue to operate at the same LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours under the Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions. Average delay would increase by less than two seconds at all study intersections.

Under both scenarios, the 95th percentile queue lengths would not exceed capacities at any existing study intersections. However, vehicles traveling westbound on Hansen Road from Arroyo Road could be hindered by the left-turn vehicles waiting to enter the project site, which could create a safety hazard. To eliminate such a potential safety hazard, the site plan includes the provision of a short, left-turn pocket on the existing median for vehicles entering the site from the east (traveling westbound) on Hansen Road.

Based on the above, all of the study intersections would continue to operate acceptably under both Cumulative (2040) No Project and Cumulative (2040) Plus Project Conditions.

Transit Facilities
According to the SLVSP EIR, development of the SLVSP would require the extension of existing transit routes to serve potential new ridership within the Specific Plan area, as well as bus pull-outs and other stop amenities throughout the Specific Plan area. However, with implementation of Specific Plan policies, the SLVSP EIR determined that impacts to transit facilities would be less than significant.

Public transit within Livermore is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAFTA). Currently, bus service is not provided on Arroyo Road or Hansen Road.

Thus, the project would not conflict with existing or planned transit service. In addition, the currently proposed project is consistent with the scope of development anticipated by the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2, for which the SLVSP assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As such, demand on existing transit facilities associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The SLVSP EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would generate bicycle and pedestrian travel demand on roadways adjacent to the SLVSP area, requiring construction of sections of the City's Bicycle I Pedestrian Plan facilities on subarea frontages concurrent with individual subarea development. The EIR noted that the Specific Plan did not include all of the required Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan facilities, and did not explicitly address trail crossing treatments. As such, the SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.5-6(a) and 4.5-6(b), which would reduce all impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 4.5-6(a) and 4.5-6(b) would require construction of City planned trail and roadway crossings, and trail and bicycle facilities to be constructed within Subareas 1, 2, 3, and 7.

As discussed above, the currently proposed project is consistent with the scope of development anticipated by the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2, for which the SLVSP assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As such, demand on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the SLVSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1095
Currently, Arroyo Road provides a Class II bike lane with access to several commercial facilities in the area. Additionally, the Arroyo Road Trail runs along the eastern border of the project site, adjacent to Arroyo Road, and is part of a trail system through the entire City of Livermore. The proposed project includes a path connection to the Arroyo Road Trail. In addition, an existing sidewalk along the north side of Hansen Road extends east and west with connection to several main roads in the area and residential parcels to the west. As proposed, site access for all travel modes, including bicyclists, would be provided by Hansen Road and the project driveway, which would adequately accommodate both vehicle and bicycle travel. It should be noted that compliance with Mitigation Measures

4.5-6(a) and 4.5-6(b) of the SLVSP would not be required as part of the proposed project, as the project site is not located within Subareas 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
b. As discussed above, because VMT analysis is not required for an addendum to an EIR that was issued in draft form prior to July 1, 2020, additional traffic analysis is not required for this Addendum. Nonetheless, an analysis of VMT has been included herein for informational purposes.

Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. The City of Livermore has not yet adopted a policy or thresholds of significance regarding VMT. Nonetheless, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory to evaluate transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA,36 which includes screening thresholds to identify when a lead agency may screen out VMT impacts.

The OPR Technical Advisory does not specifically address hotel or visitor-based uses.

The proposed inn requires consideration of the project's intended visitor base and where those customers would otherwise have stayed if the project were not constructed. Unless a hotel project also includes construction of a major new attraction or convention component, on its own it is unlikely to draw substantial numbers of new visitors to the City; it will rather redistribute where visitors stay. This shift in travel patterns and VMT is similar to how OPR considers retail uses, in which many types of retail projects may generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact since the total amount of shopping that occurs in a given geographic area tends to remain unchanged, and adding new retail uses to the urban fabric often reduces the distances (i.e., the "miles" in VMT that people need to drive on shopping trips). The City of San Jose was an early adopter of VMT thresholds and has chosen to apply this methodology of treating lodging uses similarly to retail, where small- to mid-sized hotels and other lodging uses can be expected to shift travel patterns rather than generate new VMT and can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation-related VMT impact. 36 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December 2018.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1096
The applicant has indicated that the 1,800-square-foot indoor meeting space would primarily be for internal use (i.e., staff meetings), as well as for use by registered inn guests for team building, classes, workshops, presentations, meetings, and similar activities. The space is not intended to be used for large events such as weddings, banquets, receptions, or other similar gatherings or parties. The City will condition the project to ensure such events would not occur at the project site, consistent with the applicant’s intent.

The Livermore wine country contains more than 42 wineries and vineyards. Currently, only one boutique hotel is located within the project region, the 38-room Rose Inn in Downtown Pleasanton. Visitor organizations believe that demand exists for a small boutique hotel, similar to the 38-room Rose Hotel in Pleasanton, with associated conference/meeting space.37 These types of guests often go to the San Ramon Marriott and then drive to the wine country. While the amount of event space at the proposed project may be smaller than some visitor organizations believe is desirable, there is still a reasonable possibility that the proposed project would accommodate the needs of some who currently stay outside the area and drive in to experience the South Livermore Valley wine country, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the nearest hotels to the project site are located more than three miles north of the project site, and even further north from the existing wineries within the project region. Given that a demand currently exists within the project region for a hotel use similar to the proposed project, and that the proposed project would provide a closer lodging option for tourists visiting the wineries in the area, the proposed project would be assumed to shift travel patterns of visitors travelling to the City by providing an additional hotel to stay at. As a result, the project would be considered local-serving. In addition, it is noted that the OPR Technical Advisory indicates that retail development including stores less than 50,000 sf can generally be considered localserving. Therefore, using the same methodology, hotel or visitor-based uses less than 50,000 sf may also generally be considered local-serving. The proposed project would include development of the site with a 29,345-sf, two-story building for a 30-room Wine Country Inn and restaurant, and thus, is below the 50,000 sf of retail generally considered local-serving.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR.
c,d. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the potential of the SLVSP to result in inadequate emergency access and determined that new development projects would be required to design internal roadway systems which can accommodate traffic and provide access in emergency situations. As such, the SLVSP EIR concluded that with implementation of Specific Plan policies, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above, the currently proposed project is consistent with the scope of development anticipated by the SLVSP for Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As proposed, and consistent with the assumed access for Site 5D2 in the SLVSP, access to the project site would be provided from Hansen Road, west of the intersection with Arroyo Road. The proposed project would include the provision of a short, left-turn pocket for vehicles entering the site from the east (traveling westbound) on Hansen Road. As such, 37 Bae urban economics. City of Livermore Downtown Hotel Feasibility Study. June 30, 2015.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1097
the proposed project entrance is expected to adequately and safely accommodate ingress and egress for motor vehicles and bicyclists. In addition, the proposed project entrance is expected to provide adequate approaching sight distance.38 It should be noted, however, that the volume of traffic anticipated to make the left-turn would be extremely low for a leftturn pocket. A total of 24 vehicles are predicted to enter the site during the PM peak hour, which equates to one vehicle entering the site roughly every two to three minutes.39 As such, the 95th percentile left-turn queue, for vehicles entering the site, would not exceed one car length. Furthermore, the volume of westbound traffic continuing straight is also low (just 23 vehicles during the both the AM and PM peak hour under existing conditions), at less than one vehicle traveling westbound every two minutes, making the likelihood of through traffic being significantly impacted by left-turns entering the site extremely remote.40 Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature.

Internal circulation would be provided by a U-shaped internal drive aisle that would provide vehicle access to drop-off areas and parking spaces. The drop-off area would provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and would allow for emergency vehicles to adequately circulate the site. All internal drive aisles would also be appropriately sized to allow EVA.

Based on the above, the proposed project would allow for adequate EVA to the entirety of the site through adequate drive aisle widths and the use of the drop-off and EVA turnaround area. In addition, the inclusion of the left-turn pocket on Hansen Road would ensure vehicles traveling westbound from Arroyo Road, including emergency vehicles, would have adequate access to the project site. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.
38 TJKM. Traffic Impact Study – Livermore Wine Country Inn. August 23, 2019. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1098
XVIII. 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:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k).

Pgs. 4.10-7
to 4.10-8 No No No
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Pgs. 4.10-7
to 4.10-8 No No No
Discussion
a,b. Because Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines did not previously include a specific section on tribal cultural resources, the SLVSP EIR did not include a specific analysis of the SLVSP’s potential tribal cultural resource related impacts; however, as noted in the SLVSP EIR, Livermore and the surrounding vicinity are known to contain numerous traces of past human activity, including early Native American sites and artifacts. Therefore, the issue was still considered in the evaluation of the SLVSP within the Cultural Resources chapter of the SLVSP EIR.

As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Addendum, the SLVSP EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the SLVSP to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, or disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and did not identify any previously recorded archeological resources or human remains on or within the immediate vicinity of the Specific Plan area.

However, the SLVSP EIR concluded that construction activities could potentially disturb or destroy significant buried archaeological resources and/or human remains.

Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan Policy 6(b), which is equivalent to Mitigation Measure 1-l(c) of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan EIR, all potential impacts would be less than significant. General Plan Policy 6(b)/Mitigation Measure I-1(c) states that if any archaeological sites are found during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended pending site investigation by qualified professionals, and if, in the opinion of a qualified professional, ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1099
the site will yield new information or important verification of previous findings, the site shall not be destroyed. The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the aforementioned policy/mitigation measure.

To ensure that any additional resources have not been discovered since the adoption of the SLVSP EIR, a records search of the CHRIS was performed by the NWIC for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area.41 The NWIC concluded that the project site does not contain any recorded archaeological resources nor any historic buildings or structures on any lists of historic resources. In addition, a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File search did not yield any information regarding the presence of Tribal Cultural Resources within the project site or the immediate area.42 AB 52, passed in 2014, requires environmental review documents to disclose and analyze potential significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, including sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Lead agencies are also required to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if the tribe requests to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required for a project. AB 52 specifically applies to projects that have a Notice of Preparation or a Notice of Intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015. The City of Livermore certified the SLVSP EIR prior to implementation of AB 52. Therefore, AB 52 is not applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.
41 Northwest Information Center. Records Search Results for the Proposed Wine Country Inn Project. August 15, 2019. 42 Native American Heritage Commission. Wine Country Inn Project, City of Livermore; Livermore USGS Quadrangle, Alameda County, California. July 24, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1100
XIX. UTILITIES AND
SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Pgs. 4.9-15
and 4.9-21 No No No
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Pgs. 4.9-6
to 4.9-14 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.9-19
to 4.9-21 No No No
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?
N/A No No No
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. According to the SLVSP EIR, a number improvements to the existing water supply system would be required to serve the SLVSP, including construction of new water mains and lines, the expansion of Pumping Station 26 at the corner of Marina Avenue and Arroyo Road, the expansion of the Altamont Reservoir, and the construction of water storage tanks in Subareas 4 and 7. The SLVSP EIR concluded that construction of new water infrastructure could result in less-than-significant impacts associated with traffic, noise, and air quality; however according to the SLVSP EIR the visual impacts of water tanks needed in Subareas 4 and 7 could generate potentially significant impacts. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 to reduce visual impacts of water tanks needed in Subareas 4 and 7 to a less-than-significant level.

In addition, the SLVSP EIR noted that a number of improvements to the existing wastewater systems would be required to serve SLVSP, including construction of new wastewater mains and lines, replacement of segments of the East Avenue line, and replacement of part of the El Caminito line to resolve a bottleneck. Nonetheless, the SLVSP EIR concluded that because installation of new wastewater lines would occur at the same time as the construction of new streets and installation of other utilities, impacts were addressed in other sections of the SLVSP EIR, and, as a result, impacts would be less than significant.

The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 of the SLVSP, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. With regard to project-specific ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1101
utility needs, as part of the proposed project, a new six-inch sewer line would connect to the City’s existing eight-inch sewer line in Hansen Road. In addition, the proposed project would include a new four-inch water line connection to the City’s existing eight-inch water line in Hansen Road. The project would also include an on-site stormwater collection and treatment system connecting to the City’s existing 18-inch storm drain located in Hansen Road. Electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. The analysis of the SLVSP EIR included an assessment of the SLVSP’s utilities needs at buildout. Therefore, the utility needs associated with the proposed project were previously considered within the SLVSP EIR, and the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR would not be altered such that the proposed project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

It should be noted that because the proposed project is not located within Subareas 4 and 7, and would not include the construction of water tanks, Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 included in the SLVSP EIR would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR. b. As discussed throughout this Addendum, the currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 of the SLVSP, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As such, water demand associated with the proposed project was previously considered within the SLVSP EIR, and the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR would not be altered such that water demand would increase. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations.

The project would not result in increased use of water supplies beyond what has been anticipated by the City and accounted for in the City’s UWMP. According to the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand for normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios through 2040.43 Furthermore, all landscaping improvements would be consistent with Section 13.25 of the Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape, and would be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system, and the project would use low-flow toilets and shower heads in guest rooms. When additionally factoring in water-saving measures that would be implemented as part of the proposed project, a reasonable assumption can be made that water demand would be further reduced compared to what was assume for the SLVSP EIR.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
c. The SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential impacts on wastewater capacity to determine if adequate capacity exists to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. According to the SLVSP EIR, total wastewater generation for the SLVSP was projected to be 308,000 gallons per day (gal/day). 43 California Water Service. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Livermore District. June 2021.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1102
Accordingly, residential development within the SLVSP was anticipated to use approximately 16 percent of remaining uncommitted residential capacity, and commercial development and community facilities were anticipated to use approximately 1.9 percent of remaining uncommitted non-residential capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), and project impacts were determined to be less-than-significant. However, the SLVSP EIR noted that capacity in the future would be more limited, and the capacity of the WWTP will be reached sometime between 2010 and 2015, requiring an expansion.

As such, the lack of cumulative capacity in the WWTP and subsequent need for expansion was considered a significant impact. Therefore, the SLVSP EIR concluded that until adequate capacity exists to serve the SLVSP and future development of the City, the SLVSP’s potential impacts on wastewater capacity would remain significant and unavoidable.

Since the SLVSP EIR was drafted, the City has planned a Phase VI expansion project to address future increases in demand and has a sanitary sewer impact fee program in place to fund the required improvements. Completion of the Phase VI project would provide sufficient capacity for the plant to process the projected ultimate flows.

As discussed throughout this Addendum, the currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 of the SLVSP, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. As such, wastewater generation associated with the proposed project was previously considered within the SLVSP EIR, and the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR would not be altered such that wastewater generation would increase. In addition, the project would be subject to payment of the City’s sanitary sewer impact fee, which would ensure that funds are available to provide for future expansion of the City’s WWTP, as necessary.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.
d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material collection within the City of Livermore is provided through a franchise agreement with Livermore Sanitation, Inc. Solid waste from the City is ultimately disposed of at the Republic Services Vasco Road Landfill, located at 4001 North Vasco Road. As of 2017, the landfill had approximately 6,800,000 cubic yards (CY) of remaining capacity, or 20.6 percent of the total permitted capacity of the landfill (32,970,000 CY).44
The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 of the SLVSP, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in increased solid waste generation beyond what has been previously anticipated for the site by the City. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 8.08, Solid Waste Management, of the City’s Municipal 44 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Vasco Road Landfill, Application for Solid Waste Facility Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. October 31, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1103
Code. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. As a result, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1104
XX. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Pgs. 4.9-25
to 4.9-27 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.9-25
to 4.9-27 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.9-25
to 4.9-27 No No No
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?
Pgs. 4.9-25
to 4.9-27 No No No
Discussion
a-d. Wildfire is an environmental issue area that was included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G subsequent to the approval of the SLVSP EIR. As such, the SLVSP EIR did not include an analysis specifically dedicated to wildfire; however, the SLVSP EIR analyzed the SLVSP’s potential impacts related to wildfires within Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities. As noted therein, the majority of the development area would be surrounded by irrigated agriculture (which would be fire resistant) or by man-made firebreaks such as roadways. However, the SLVSP EIR noted that the eastern lots of Subarea 4 immediately adjacent to the proposed regional park, the southern lots of Subarea 7, and parts of Subarea 6 could be susceptible to wildland fires. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 was included to specifically address wildland fire impacts within Subareas 4, 6, and 7. The SLVSP EIR determined that implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-7, as well as applicable Specific Plan policies would reduce wildland-building fire exposure impacts to less-than-significant levels.

The currently proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed SLVSP. According to the CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or State Responsibility Area.45 In addition, the project is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations. Moreover, the SLVSP identifies the 3.2-acre project site as Commercial Site 5D2, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. Furthermore, given that the project site is within Subarea 5, which was not identified in the SLVSP EIR as a 45 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Alameda County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. September 3, 2006.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1105
Subarea that is susceptible to wildland fire impacts, Mitigation Measure 4.9-7 would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Based on the above information, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the SLVSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR.

Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.

Additional Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
None Required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1106
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE.

Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
Previous CEQA
Document(s)?
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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?
N/A No No No
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)?
N/A No No No
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
N/A No No No
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this Addendum, special-status species are not expected to occur on the project site. In addition, as discussed above, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable Specific Plan policies including Policy 6-26 of the Specific Plan, which require surveys be conducted for nesting birds and raptors prior to any development within the project site. Additionally, while the project site could contain unidentified resources beneath the ground surface, compliance with General Plan Policy 6(b), which is equivalent to Mitigation Measure 1-l(c) of the South Livermore Valley Area Plan EIR, would ensure that adverse effects to inadvertently discovered resources would be minimized during construction activities, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Considering the above, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts associated with such resources have been adequately addressed and would not change from what was identified in the SLVSP EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. b. The proposed project was included in the future development assumptions evaluated in the SLVSP EIR. The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1107
of the previously analyzed Commercial Site 5D2 of the SLVSP, which assumed the development of a Wine Country Inn with 30 guest rooms and a 100-seat restaurant. The project would include approval of a SLVSP Text Amendment to Policy 4-7 to clarify that a 50-foot setback is required from Hansen Road for Site 5D1 and Site 5D2. However, the 50-foot setback would not be substantial such that the conclusions of the SLVSP EIR would change, as demonstrated throughout this addendum. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the SLVSP EIR, and further analysis is not required in this Addendum.
c. As described in this Addendum, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and excessive noise, beyond those effects previously analyzed as part of the SLVSP EIR. Therefore, further analysis is not required.

ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1108

APPENDIX A

SLVSP TEXT AMENDMENTS
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1109
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 4.0 Land Use
Amended September 2020
a single commercial use has been identified, but for others, alternative uses are designated. The following new commercial uses will be permitted subject to conditional use permits or other projectspecific review:
x Subarea #1: None
x Subarea #2: Site 2A1(2,2 ac.) Commercial Uses: A small winery or a bed and breakfast; and a small
tasting room or small restaurant; and
Site 2A2 (8 ac.) a medium winery or bed and
breakfast, and a tasting room or small
restaurant on eight acres. Existing farm
support operations are allowed to continue
on 6.4 acres adjacent to site 2A2.
x Subarea #3: A small winery or a bed-and-breakfast; and, A tasting room or small restaurant.
x Subarea #4: An olive mill and a wine tasting room;
Two small wineries; and,
A small restaurant or a small winery.
x Subarea #5: A Wine Country retail center;
Three small wineries;
A Wine Country inn;
A large restaurant; and
A bed-and-breakfast or two residential units.
x Subarea #6: A medium-size winery on 12 acres.
x Subarea #7: A medium sized winery; or
A wine country inn;
A large restaurant;
A winery; and
A boutique winery on each 20-acre parcel.

Policy 4-5:

Policy 4-6:

Policy 4-7:

Policy 4-8:

Policy 4-9:

Only those commercial uses identified in this Plan will be permitted. All commercial development applications will be subject to a site plan approval and/or a Planned Unit Development Permit. Additional accessory activities that support the listed uses (such as one caretaker’s unit) may be permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit.

Commercial uses will maintain a small, pedestrian scale, and will not exceed an FAR of

0.25. Building setbacks for commercial uses shall be 100 feet from URDGIURQWDJHVWKHSURSHUW\ OLQH, except for commercial site #3A which shall be 25 feet and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road. All setback areas shall be planted with vineyards or orchards, except the 50-foot setback area from Hansen Road for commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

The design of commercial facilities shall be consistent with the rural, wine country character of the area.

Chapter 12 of the Specific Plan includes design standards and guidelines to guide the City's evaluation of applications for commercial uses within the South Livermore Valley.

Commercial development within the Specific Plan area shall be consistent with the Specific Plan standards and guidelines adopted by the City. 4-4 ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1110
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 5.0 Circulation
Amended September 2020

5.4.4 SUBAREA ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Each of the seven subareas will take access from existing or planned roads. This section describes the key access and internal circulation associated with each subarea. Preceding the subarea by subarea discussion are a number of general policies that relate to the circulation systems in all of the subareas.

Policy 5-9:

Policy 5-10:

Policy 5-11:

Policy 5-12:

Policy 5-13:

Developers in all subareas shall coordinate and cooperate in the design and implementation of the subarea street systems since some properties will be dependent upon circulation improvements on other properties to obtain access to their own parcels.

A model development agreement shall be prepared prior to annexation which commits all participating landowners to dedicate road rights-of-way as needed to accommodate Specific Plan development.

Access to commercial areas generally shall be kept separate from access roads to residential areas. Access to commercial sites shall take access directly from roadways external to the subareas, except in subarea #5 where sites 5D1 and 5D2 sWill take access from Hansen Road.

All road rights-of-way and street improvements within the subareas will be dedicated to the City of Livermore as public streets.

In order to accommodate the difference in street standards, and to emphasize the connection of the Specific Plan development to the rural countryside, subarea streets generally connect to existing rural County roads, rather than connecting into existing suburban street systems.

Each residential development shall ensure that there is safe pedestrian and bicycle route between the development and the schools that serve the area.

Subarea #1
As shown in Figure 5.9, Subarea #1 will take access from South Vasco Road at three locations. The northernmost roadway will be located opposite and just south of Shaheen Industrial Park. The roadway will be a divided entry drive. The middle roadway will be located opposite the primary Subarea #2 collector, forming a four-way intersection with South Vasco Road. It will also be designed as a divided entry road. The southernmost entry will be located at the location of the existing driveway to Parcel 1E. It will be designed as an undivided entry road. An emergency vehicular access (EVA) route will connect the northern and middle residential development areas of Subarea #1 to provide adequate fire department access. No EVA is proposed for the southern development area.

Policy 5-14: Developers for Subareas #1 and #2 (particularly of Parcel 1C and 2C) shall coordinate the design of their entry roads to ensure a safe and consistent alignment with each other and with South Vasco Road. South Vasco Road will be widened at the four-way intersection with the entries to Subareas #1 and #2 to provide for left-turn lanes and rightturn/deceleration lanes into the subareas.

Policy 5-15: To ensure safe traffic movements, a minimum off-set of 300 feet shall be maintained between the northernmost entrances into Subareas #1 and #2.

Policy 5-16: An emergency vehicle access (EVA) route shall be constructed between the northern and middle development areas in Subarea #1. Subarea developers shall coordinate with the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department to ensure that EVA design is in conformance with Department standards.
5-17
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1111

12.2.7 SITE 4C - SMALL WINERY
SITE 5C1 — SMALL WINERY
SITE 5D1 - COMMERCIAL CENTER
SITE 5D2 - WINE COUNTRY INN AND RESTAURANT
Analysis - All Sites

1. Required setback
(agricultural buffer): 100
feet from Arroyo Road. 50
feet setback from Hansen
Road for sites 5D1 and
5D2.

Site 4C
x Preferred entry is from
Arroyo Road.
x Residential uses are set
back 600 feet from
Arroyo Road.
x Emphasize riparian zone
by using riparian
planting.
x Maximize panoramic
views to south and views
over the swale to the
north.
x Take advantage of
elevated location for
visual presence from
Wetmore / Hansen
intersection.
x Reinforce historic
intersection by using
entry signage which
relates to Olivina Gate.

1. A 4-foot paved shoulder
and a 5-foot packed,
walkable apron is required
along the Arroyo Road
frontage.

2. Keep service and
production uses at eastern
edge.

Site 5C1
x Use strong architectural elements to create visual presence. 50' -->
setback

Š—œŽ—ȱ˜Š
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1112
x Preserve views to the south.

1. Required setback (agricultural buffer): 350 feet from Wetmore Road.

Site 5D1
x Vineyard planting along frontage will maintain visibility.

1. A 25 foot right-of-way for the Regional Trail Corridor will extend south from the existing trail along the frontage of the Ravenswood site, containing a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle trail, a 3-foot planted area, and an 8-foot equestrian trail, as shown in South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Figure 5.18.

2. Rears of buildings shall be screened from residences to the west.

3. Entrance on Hansen Road.

Site 5D2
x Emphasize drainage pattern by riparian planting in southeast corner. x Preserve views to south.
x Use strong architectural element to create visual presence. x Vineyard or orchard planting along frontage will maintain visibility.

1. A 25 foot right-of-way for the Regional Trail Corridor will extend south from the existing trail along the frontage of the Ravenswood site, containing a 10-foot pedestrian/bicycle trail, a 3-foot planted area, and an 8-foot equestrian trail, as shown in South Livermore Valley Specific Plan Figure 5.18. Screen service areas from residences to north and west.

2. Entrance on Hansen Road

3. Protect the Regional Trail Corridor on Arroyo Road
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1113
50'
setback ------- >
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 12.0 Commercial Design Guidelines & Standards Amended September 2020
12-13

Š—œŽ—ȱ˜Š
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1114
City of Livermore South Livermore Valley Specific Plan
Amended February 2004 12.0 Commercial Design Guidelines & Standards Amended September 2020

12.3.2 SITE LAYOUT
The site layout determines the way in which one experiences the site. It creates sequences and relationships, defines spaces and uses, and preserves or screens views. It requires thoughtful consideration.

Setbacks

1. A 100 foot planted building setback is required from all public roadways for every commercial site except site 3A2 (small restaurant or tasting room at the proposed Concannon-Wente intersection) and commercial sites #5D1 and #5D2 which shall be 50 feet from Hansen Road and may include parking, landscaping, and a trash enclosure.

2. Side and rear setbacks are stated in Section 12.2, Site Analysis and Site Specific Guidelines. Where no reference is made in that section, side and rear setbacks are 0 feet.

Entries
x The scale and character of each entry should reflect the business it represents.
x Continuation or repetition of entry elements into the site and at the structures is encouraged.
x The design plan for the entry should creatively blend planting, walls, signage, lighting and landmark elements into an understated composition that expresses a sense of welcome, entry, and identity.

Landmark elements might include: low decorative walls, portals, or other memorable elements that draw the eye.
x Entries should to harmonize with the adjacent streetscape. x Entries from the street should relate to automobile scale - entry elements should be large enough to create a sense of pass though for the automobile.

1. Entries shall be well defined and clearly visible from the street.

2. Materials used at entries shall be compatible and consistent with the architecture of the buildings on site. 12-20
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1115

APPENDIX B

AIR QUALITY AND GHG MODELING RESULTS
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1116

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Unmitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1117
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2020 1/15/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/23/2020 1/1/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/6/2019 3/16/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2020 3/31/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2020 4/15/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/7/2019 4/1/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2019 3/2/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/24/2020 3/17/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1118

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1119

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2293 380.2293 0.0698 0.0000 381.97392021 0.0114 0.0177 0.0193 3.0000e005 3.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 1.3500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 9.7000e- 004 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 2.9593 2.9593 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.9691 Maximum 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2293 380.2293 0.0698 0.0000 381.9739 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2290 380.2290 0.0698 0.0000 381.97362021 0.0114 0.0177 0.0193 3.0000e005 3.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 1.3500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 9.7000e- 004 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 2.9593 2.9593 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.9690 Maximum 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2290 380.2290 0.0698 0.0000 381.9736 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1120

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1393 2.2000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811 Energy 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 121.8840 121.8840 5.4300e- 003 2.3700e- 003 122.7268 Mobile 0.0656 0.2992 0.6199 1.9900e003 0.1649 1.8500e- 003 0.1667 0.0443 1.7300e- 003 0.0460 0.0000 182.7859 182.7859 7.6100e- 003 0.0000 182.9760 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0537 0.0000 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5028 1.1229 1.6257 0.0518 1.2400e003 3.2908 Total 0.2137 0.3791 0.7033 2.4900e003 0.1649 9.1900e- 003 0.1741 0.0443 9.0700e- 003 0.0533 4.6837 305.8381 310.5218 0.3046 3.6200e- 003 319.2176 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 3 1-26-2020 4-25-2020 0.6628 0.66284 4-26-2020 7-25-2020 0.8527 0.85275 7-26-2020 10-25-2020 0.8624 0.86246 10-26-2020 1-25-2021 0.6544 0.6544 Highest 0.8624 0.8624
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1121

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Energy 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 93.8561 93.8561 2.4200e- 003 1.7500e- 003 94.4376 Mobile 0.0653 0.2967 0.6121 1.9500e003 0.1616 1.8200e- 003 0.1634 0.0434 1.7000e- 003 0.0451 0.0000 179.5447 179.5447 7.5200e- 003 0.0000 179.7326 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0537 0.0000 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4475 1.0030 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325 Total 0.2075 0.3766 0.6870 2.4300e003 0.1616 7.9300e- 003 0.1695 0.0434 7.8100e- 003 0.0512 4.5013 274.5029 279.0041 0.2956 2.8600e- 003 287.2456 Mitigated Operational3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

2.92 0.66 2.32 2.41 2.00 13.71 2.62 2.01 13.89 4.01 3.89 10.25 10.15 2.97 20.99 10.02 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1122
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1983 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 114 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.214
Acres of Paving: 0.72
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1123

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1124

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0355 0.0000 0.0355 0.0185 0.0000 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 7.0000e- 003 7.0000e- 003 6.4400e- 003 6.4400e- 003 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Total 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 0.0355 7.0000e- 003 0.0425 0.0185 6.4400e- 003 0.0249 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.2600e003 0.2193 0.0441 5.9000e- 004 0.0127 7.1000e- 004 0.0134 3.4800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.1600e- 003 0.0000 57.4780 57.4780 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 57.5520 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 Worker 2.7000e004 2.0000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5711 0.5711 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5715 Total 6.5300e003 0.2195 0.0461 6.0000e- 004 0.0133 7.1000e- 004 0.0140 3.6500e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 58.0491 58.0491 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 58.1234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1125

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0355 0.0000 0.0355 0.0185 0.0000 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 7.0000e- 003 7.0000e- 003 6.4400e- 003 6.4400e- 003 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Total 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 0.0355 7.0000e- 003 0.0425 0.0185 6.4400e- 003 0.0249 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.2600e003 0.2193 0.0441 5.9000e- 004 0.0127 7.1000e- 004 0.0134 3.4800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.1600e- 003 0.0000 57.4780 57.4780 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 57.5520 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 Worker 2.7000e004 2.0000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5711 0.5711 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5715 Total 6.5300e003 0.2195 0.0461 6.0000e- 004 0.0133 7.1000e- 004 0.0140 3.6500e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 58.0491 58.0491 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 58.1234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1126

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1358 228.1358 0.0557 0.0000 229.5273 Total 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1358 228.1358 0.0557 0.0000 229.5273 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 3.8100e003 0.1137 0.0286 2.7000e- 004 6.4600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.8700e- 003 5.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 25.7892 25.7892 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 25.8225 Worker 8.1600e003 5.8400e- 003 0.0605 1.9000e- 004 0.0195 1.3000e- 004 0.0196 5.1800e- 003 1.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 0.0000 17.0474 17.0474 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 17.0577 Total 0.0120 0.1195 0.0891 4.6000e004 0.0259 6.8000e- 004 0.0266 7.0500e- 003 6.5000e- 004 7.7000e- 003 0.0000 42.8366 42.8366 1.7400e- 003 0.0000 42.8802 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1127

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1356 228.1356 0.0557 0.0000 229.5270 Total 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1356 228.1356 0.0557 0.0000 229.5270 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 3.8100e003 0.1137 0.0286 2.7000e- 004 6.4600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.8700e- 003 5.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 25.7892 25.7892 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 25.8225 Worker 8.1600e003 5.8400e- 003 0.0605 1.9000e- 004 0.0195 1.3000e- 004 0.0196 5.1800e- 003 1.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 0.0000 17.0474 17.0474 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 17.0577 Total 0.0120 0.1195 0.0891 4.6000e004 0.0259 6.8000e- 004 0.0266 7.0500e- 003 6.5000e- 004 7.7000e- 003 0.0000 42.8366 42.8366 1.7400e- 003 0.0000 42.8802 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1128

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Total 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 2.0000e005 5.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1297 0.1297 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1298 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0835 0.0835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0836 Total 6.0000e005 5.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2132 0.2132 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2134 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1129

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Total 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 2.0000e005 5.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1297 0.1297 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1298 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0835 0.0835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0836 Total 6.0000e005 5.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2132 0.2132 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2134 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1130

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.5100e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0754 Paving 9.4000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.4500e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0754 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1131

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.5100e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0753 Paving 9.4000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.4500e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0753 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1132

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Total 0.1778 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Total 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1133

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Total 0.1778 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Total 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1134

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.1300e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2000e003 8.4000e- 003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Total 0.0103 8.4000e003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Total 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1135

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.1300e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2000e003 8.4000e- 003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Total 0.0103 8.4000e003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Total 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1136
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0653 0.2967 0.6121 1.9500e003 0.1616 1.8200e- 003 0.1634 0.0434 1.7000e- 003 0.0451 0.0000 179.5447 179.5447 7.5200e- 003 0.0000 179.7326 Unmitigated 0.0656 0.2992 0.6199 1.9900e003 0.1649 1.8500e- 003 0.1667 0.0443 1.7300e- 003 0.0460 0.0000 182.7859 182.7859 7.6100e- 003 0.0000 182.9760

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1137
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1138
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0070 7.0070 7.5000e004 1.6000e- 004 7.0723 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 35.0348 35.0348 3.7700e003 7.8000e- 004 35.3615 NaturalGas
Mitigated

8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.5900e- 003 87.3653 NaturalGasUnmitigated

8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.5900e- 003 87.3653

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 1.07873e
+006

5.8200e003 0.0529 0.0444 3.2000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 0.0000 57.5650 57.5650 1.1000e- 003 1.0600e- 003 57.9071 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 Quality
Restaurant
519700 2.8000e003 0.0255 0.0214 1.5000e- 004 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 0.0000 27.7332 27.7332 5.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 27.8980 Single Family
Housing
29065.1 1.6000e004 1.3400e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5510 1.5510 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.5602 Total 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.3653 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1139

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 1.07873e
+006

5.8200e003 0.0529 0.0444 3.2000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 0.0000 57.5650 57.5650 1.1000e- 003 1.0600e- 003 57.9071 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 Quality
Restaurant
519700 2.8000e003 0.0255 0.0214 1.5000e- 004 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 0.0000 27.7332 27.7332 5.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 27.8980 Single Family
Housing
29065.1 1.6000e004 1.3400e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5510 1.5510 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.5602 Total 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.3653 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1140

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 185509 22.6772 2.4400e003 5.0000e- 004 22.8887
Parking Lot 11200 1.3691 1.5000e004 3.0000e- 005 1.3819 Quality
Restaurant
81800 9.9995 1.0800e003 2.2000e- 004 10.0927
Single Family
Housing
8090.57 0.9890 1.1000e004 2.0000e- 005 0.9982
Total 35.0348 3.7800e003 7.7000e- 004 35.3615
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1141
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 37101.8 4.5354 4.9000e004 1.0000e- 004 4.5777
Parking Lot 2240 0.2738 3.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2764 Quality
Restaurant
16360 1.9999 2.2000e004 4.0000e- 005 2.0186
Single Family
Housing
1618.11 0.1978 2.0000e005 0.0000 0.1997
Total 7.0070 7.6000e004 1.5000e- 004 7.0723
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1142
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Unmitigated 0.1393 2.2000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811

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

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.8900e003 1.3000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 0.1271 0.0312 0.1583 2.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1665 Landscaping 3.2000e004 1.0000e- 004 8.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0141 0.0141 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.1393 2.3000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1143
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail

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

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.0000e005 7.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0849 0.0849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0854 Landscaping 3.2000e004 1.0000e- 004 8.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0141 0.0141 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1144
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325
Unmitigated 1.6257 0.0518 1.2400e003 3.2908

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 0.761003 /

0.0845559

0.7810 0.0249 6.0000e004 1.5804
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

0.758834 /

0.0484362

0.7634 0.0248 6.0000e004 1.5604
Single Family
Housing

0.065154 /

0.0410754

0.0813 2.1300e003 5.0000e- 005 0.1499
Total 1.6257 0.0518 1.2500e003 3.2908
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1145

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 0.677293 /

0.079398

0.6968 0.0221 5.3000e004 1.4084
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

0.675363 /

0.0454816

0.6804 0.0221 5.3000e004 1.3898
Single Family
Housing

0.0579871
/

0.0385698

0.0733 1.9000e003 5.0000e- 005 0.1343
Total 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1146
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429
Unmitigated 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 16.43 3.3351 0.1971 0.0000 8.2627
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

2.28 0.4628 0.0274 0.0000 1.1466
Single Family
Housing

1.26 0.2558 0.0151 0.0000 0.6337
Total 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0430
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1147

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 16.43 3.3351 0.1971 0.0000 8.2627
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

2.28 0.4628 0.0274 0.0000 1.1466
Single Family
Housing

1.26 0.2558 0.0151 0.0000 0.6337
Total 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0430
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1148

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 33 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1149

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Unmitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1150
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2020 1/15/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/23/2020 1/1/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/6/2019 3/16/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2020 3/31/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2020 4/15/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/7/2019 4/1/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2019 3/2/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/24/2020 3/17/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1151

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1152

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9608 1.4019 10.3627 4.0479 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 2021 3.9065 20.0487 19.3733 0.0350 0.3141 1.0565 1.3706 0.0849 0.9989 1.0838 0.0000 3,361.358 4 3,361.358
4 0.6542 0.0000 3,377.713
4 Maximum 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9608 1.4019 10.3627 4.0479 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9608 1.4019 10.3627 4.0479 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 2021 3.9065 20.0487 19.3733 0.0350 0.3141 1.0565 1.3706 0.0849 0.9989 1.0838 0.0000 3,361.358 4 3,361.358
4 0.6542 0.0000 3,377.713
4 Maximum 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9608 1.4019 10.3627 4.0479 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1153

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.4198 1.6064 3.4267 0.0116 0.9412 0.0101 0.9514 0.2518 9.4900e003 0.2613 1,170.497 1 1,170.497 1 0.0456 1,171.638 1 Total 2.2371 2.0641 5.2249 0.0167 0.9412 0.2334 1.1746 0.2518 0.2327 0.4846 20.3783 1,701.421 2 1,721.799
5 0.0811 0.0111 1,727.121
4 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.4179 1.5936 3.3786 0.0114 0.9224 9.9700e003 0.9324 0.2468 9.3300e- 003 0.2561 1,149.697 5 1,149.697 5 0.0451 1,150.824 2 Total 1.2004 2.0445 3.8420 0.0141 0.9224 0.0448 0.9672 0.2468 0.0441 0.2909 0.0000 1,691.245 1 1,691.245
1 0.0557 9.9300e003 1,695.594 1
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1154

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1983 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 114 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

46.34 0.95 26.47 15.80 2.00 80.83 17.66 2.00 81.05 39.96 100.00 0.60 1.77 31.38 10.22 1.83 Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.214Acres of Paving: 0.72 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1155

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1156

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4553 0.0000 6.4553 3.3624 0.0000 3.3624 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4553 1.2734 7.7288 3.3624 1.1716 4.5339 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1252 39.0606 7.7631 0.1085 2.3822 0.1277 2.5099 0.6528 0.1222 0.7750 11,601.593 8 11,601.593
8 0.5804 11,616.103
1 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 Worker 0.0521 0.0316 0.4025 1.2400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 123.1165 123.1165 2.9700e- 003 123.1907 Total 1.1774 39.0922 8.1655 0.1097 2.5055 0.1285 2.6339 0.6855 0.1229 0.8084 11,724.71 03 11,724.71
03 0.5833 11,739.29
38 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1157

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4553 0.0000 6.4553 3.3624 0.0000 3.3624 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4553 1.2734 7.7288 3.3624 1.1716 4.5339 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1252 39.0606 7.7631 0.1085 2.3822 0.1277 2.5099 0.6528 0.1222 0.7750 11,601.593 8 11,601.593
8 0.5804 11,616.103
1 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 Worker 0.0521 0.0316 0.4025 1.2400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 123.1165 123.1165 2.9700e- 003 123.1907 Total 1.1774 39.0922 8.1655 0.1097 2.5055 0.1285 2.6339 0.6855 0.1229 0.8084 11,724.71 03 11,724.71
03 0.5833 11,739.29
38 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1158

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0379 1.1396 0.2718 2.7500e003 0.0677 5.5900e- 003 0.0733 0.0195 5.3400e- 003 0.0248 291.7081 291.7081 0.0144 292.0672 Worker 0.0869 0.0526 0.6708 2.0600e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 205.1941 205.1941 4.9400e- 003 205.3178 Total 0.1248 1.1922 0.9426 4.8100e003 0.2731 6.9200e- 003 0.2800 0.0740 6.5700e- 003 0.0805 496.9022 496.9022 0.0193 497.3849 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1159

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0379 1.1396 0.2718 2.7500e003 0.0677 5.5900e- 003 0.0733 0.0195 5.3400e- 003 0.0248 291.7081 291.7081 0.0144 292.0672 Worker 0.0869 0.0526 0.6708 2.0600e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 205.1941 205.1941 4.9400e- 003 205.3178 Total 0.1248 1.1922 0.9426 4.8100e003 0.2731 6.9200e- 003 0.2800 0.0740 6.5700e- 003 0.0805 496.9022 496.9022 0.0193 497.3849 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1160

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0310 1.0334 0.2437 2.7300e003 0.0677 2.2400e- 003 0.0699 0.0195 2.1400e- 003 0.0216 288.9585 288.9585 0.0136 289.2976 Worker 0.0804 0.0470 0.6141 1.9900e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 197.9899 197.9899 4.4300e- 003 198.1005 Total 0.1114 1.0804 0.8578 4.7200e003 0.2731 3.5300e- 003 0.2766 0.0740 3.3300e- 003 0.0773 486.9484 486.9484 0.0180 487.3981 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1161

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0310 1.0334 0.2437 2.7300e003 0.0677 2.2400e- 003 0.0699 0.0195 2.1400e- 003 0.0216 288.9585 288.9585 0.0136 289.2976 Worker 0.0804 0.0470 0.6141 1.9900e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 197.9899 197.9899 4.4300e- 003 198.1005 Total 0.1114 1.0804 0.8578 4.7200e003 0.2731 3.5300e- 003 0.2766 0.0740 3.3300e- 003 0.0773 486.9484 486.9484 0.0180 487.3981 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1162

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Total 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1163

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Total 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1164

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1165

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1166

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Total 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1167

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Total 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1168
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4179 1.5936 3.3786 0.0114 0.9224 9.9700e003 0.9324 0.2468 9.3300e- 003 0.2561 1,149.697 5 1,149.697 5 0.0451 1,150.824 2 Unmitigated 0.4198 1.6064 3.4267 0.0116 0.9412 0.0101 0.9514 0.2518 9.4900e003 0.2613 1,170.497 1 1,170.497 1 0.0456 1,171.638 1

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1169
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1170
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2955.42 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant
1423.84 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

79.6304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1171
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2.95542 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant

1.42384 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

0.0796304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1172
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Unmitigated 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.0363 0.0200 1.3403 2.5200e003 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 20.3783 6.1765 26.5548 0.0252 1.4400e- 003 27.6133 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1173

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Install Low Flow ToiletInstall Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail8.0 Waste Detail

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.5400e003 0.0132 5.6000e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 16.8000 16.8000 3.2000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 16.8998 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1174

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:44 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1175

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Unmitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1176
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2020 1/15/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/23/2020 1/1/2021tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/6/2019 3/16/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/17/2020 3/31/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/18/2020 4/15/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/7/2019 4/1/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/26/2019 3/2/2020tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/24/2020 3/17/2020 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1177

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1178

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9608 1.4041 10.3649 4.0479 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 2021 3.9140 20.0709 19.3623 0.0348 0.3141 1.0566 1.3707 0.0849 0.9990 1.0839 0.0000 3,335.300 1 3,335.300
1 0.6550 0.0000 3,351.673
9 Maximum 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9608 1.4041 10.3649 4.0479 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9608 1.4041 10.3649 4.0479 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 2021 3.9140 20.0709 19.3623 0.0348 0.3141 1.0566 1.3707 0.0849 0.9990 1.0839 0.0000 3,335.300 1 3,335.300
1 0.6550 0.0000 3,351.673
9 Maximum 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9608 1.4041 10.3649 4.0479 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1179

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.3568 1.6637 3.6248 0.0108 0.9412 0.0103 0.9515 0.2518 9.6000e003 0.2614 1,094.677 4 1,094.677 4 0.0478 1,095.871 5 Total 2.1740 2.1214 5.4229 0.0160 0.9412 0.2335 1.1747 0.2518 0.2328 0.4847 20.3783 1,625.601 5 1,645.979
8 0.0832 0.0111 1,651.354
8 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.3549 1.6496 3.5819 0.0106 0.9224 0.0101 0.9325 0.2468 9.4400e003 0.2562 1,075.164 4 1,075.164 4 0.0472 1,076.344 8 Total 1.1374 2.1005 4.0454 0.0133 0.9224 0.0449 0.9673 0.2468 0.0442 0.2910 0.0000 1,616.711 9 1,616.711
9 0.0578 9.9300e003 1,621.114 7
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1180

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1983 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 114 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

47.68 0.99 25.40 16.53 2.00 80.78 17.66 2.00 81.01 39.96 100.00 0.55 1.78 30.55 10.22 1.83 Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.214Acres of Paving: 0.72 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1181

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1182

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4553 0.0000 6.4553 3.3624 0.0000 3.3624 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4553 1.2734 7.7288 3.3624 1.1716 4.5339 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1560 40.0192 8.3573 0.1067 2.3822 0.1299 2.5121 0.6528 0.1243 0.7771 11,406.730 6 11,406.730
6 0.6096 11,421.969
2 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 Worker 0.0552 0.0390 0.3780 1.1400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 113.4098 113.4098 2.7700e- 003 113.4792 Total 1.2112 40.0582 8.7353 0.1078 2.5055 0.1307 2.6362 0.6855 0.1250 0.8105 11,520.14 04 11,520.14
04 0.6123 11,535.44
84 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1183

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4553 0.0000 6.4553 3.3624 0.0000 3.3624 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4553 1.2734 7.7288 3.3624 1.1716 4.5339 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1560 40.0192 8.3573 0.1067 2.3822 0.1299 2.5121 0.6528 0.1243 0.7771 11,406.730 6 11,406.730
6 0.6096 11,421.969
2 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 Worker 0.0552 0.0390 0.3780 1.1400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 113.4098 113.4098 2.7700e- 003 113.4792 Total 1.2112 40.0582 8.7353 0.1078 2.5055 0.1307 2.6362 0.6855 0.1250 0.8105 11,520.14 04 11,520.14
04 0.6123 11,535.44
84 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1184

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0399 1.1524 0.3110 2.6900e003 0.0677 5.6800e- 003 0.0734 0.0195 5.4300e- 003 0.0249 284.3272 284.3272 0.0155 284.7157 Worker 0.0919 0.0650 0.6300 1.9000e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 189.0164 189.0164 4.6200e- 003 189.1319 Total 0.1318 1.2174 0.9410 4.5900e003 0.2731 7.0100e- 003 0.2801 0.0740 6.6600e- 003 0.0806 473.3436 473.3436 0.0202 473.8476 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1185

3.3 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0399 1.1524 0.3110 2.6900e003 0.0677 5.6800e- 003 0.0734 0.0195 5.4300e- 003 0.0249 284.3272 284.3272 0.0155 284.7157 Worker 0.0919 0.0650 0.6300 1.9000e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 189.0164 189.0164 4.6200e- 003 189.1319 Total 0.1318 1.2174 0.9410 4.5900e003 0.2731 7.0100e- 003 0.2801 0.0740 6.6600e- 003 0.0806 473.3436 473.3436 0.0202 473.8476 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1186

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0329 1.0423 0.2801 2.6600e003 0.0677 2.3200e- 003 0.0700 0.0195 2.2200e- 003 0.0217 281.6272 281.6272 0.0147 281.9940 Worker 0.0852 0.0580 0.5745 1.8300e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 182.3842 182.3842 4.1300e- 003 182.4873 Total 0.1180 1.1003 0.8546 4.4900e003 0.2731 3.6100e- 003 0.2767 0.0740 3.4100e- 003 0.0774 464.0113 464.0113 0.0188 464.4813 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1187

3.3 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0329 1.0423 0.2801 2.6600e003 0.0677 2.3200e- 003 0.0700 0.0195 2.2200e- 003 0.0217 281.6272 281.6272 0.0147 281.9940 Worker 0.0852 0.0580 0.5745 1.8300e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 182.3842 182.3842 4.1300e- 003 182.4873 Total 0.1180 1.1003 0.8546 4.4900e003 0.2731 3.6100e- 003 0.2767 0.0740 3.4100e- 003 0.0774 464.0113 464.0113 0.0188 464.4813 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1188

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1189

3.4 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1190

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1191

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1192

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Total 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1193

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Total 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1194
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.3549 1.6496 3.5819 0.0106 0.9224 0.0101 0.9325 0.2468 9.4400e003 0.2562 1,075.164 4 1,075.164 4 0.0472 1,076.344 8 Unmitigated 0.3568 1.6637 3.6248 0.0108 0.9412 0.0103 0.9515 0.2518 9.6000e003 0.2614 1,094.677 4 1,094.677 4 0.0478 1,095.871 5

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1195
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1196
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2955.42 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant
1423.84 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

79.6304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1197
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2.95542 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant

1.42384 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

0.0796304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1198
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Unmitigated 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.0363 0.0200 1.3403 2.5200e003 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 20.3783 6.1765 26.5548 0.0252 1.4400e- 003 27.6133 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1199

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Install Low Flow ToiletInstall Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail8.0 Waste Detail

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.5400e003 0.0132 5.6000e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 16.8000 16.8000 3.2000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 16.8998 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1200

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 26 Date: 7/26/2019 3:45 PM Wine Country Inn Unmitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1201
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Mitigation Report
Wine Country Inn Unmitigated
Construction Mitigation Summary
Phase ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OFFROAD Equipment MitigationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1202
Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF Oxidation Catalyst Air Compressors Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00Cranes Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Forklifts Diesel No Change 0 3 No Change 0.00Generator Sets Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Graders Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Pavers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Paving Equipment Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00Rollers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel No Change 0 7 No Change 0.00Welders Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00Excavators Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1203
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 2.38500E-002 1.65840E-001 1.81230E-001 2.90000E-004 1.08900E-002 1.08900E-002 0.00000E+000 2.52772E+001 2.52772E+001 1.94000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.53258E+001 Cement and
Mortar Mixers

4.80000E-004 3.04000E-003 2.54000E-003 1.00000E-005 1.20000E-004 1.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.78080E-001 3.78080E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.79060E-001 Cranes 3.92600E-002 4.66800E-001 1.83190E-001 5.00000E-004 1.92400E-002 1.77000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.39124E+001 4.39124E+001 1.42000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.42675E+001 Excavators 1.35000E-003 1.32700E-002 1.79700E-002 3.00000E-005 6.40000E-004 5.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.49535E+000 2.49535E+000 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.51553E+000 Forklifts 4.27500E-002 3.85180E-001 3.50520E-001 4.50000E-004 2.86900E-002 2.63900E-002 0.00000E+000 3.98845E+001 3.98845E+001 1.29000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.02070E+001 Generator Sets 3.94900E-002 3.44230E-001 3.66840E-001 6.50000E-004 1.94100E-002 1.94100E-002 0.00000E+000 5.59555E+001 5.59555E+001 3.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 5.60343E+001 Graders 2.62000E-003 3.47900E-002 9.98000E-003 4.00000E-005 1.11000E-003 1.02000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.20686E+000 3.20686E+000 1.04000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.23278E+000 Pavers 1.44000E-003 1.54600E-002 1.59400E-002 3.00000E-005 7.50000E-004 6.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.27159E+000 2.27159E+000 7.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.28995E+000 Paving Equipment 1.71000E-003 1.76700E-002 2.09100E-002 3.00000E-005 8.80000E-004 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.95276E+000 2.95276E+000 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.97663E+000 Rollers 1.72000E-003 1.71700E-002 1.56200E-002 2.00000E-005 1.09000E-003 1.01000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.90150E+000 1.90150E+000 6.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.91688E+000 Rubber Tired
Dozers

5.94000E-003 6.23300E-002 2.27200E-002 5.00000E-005 3.05000E-003 2.81000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.12804E+000 4.12804E+000 1.34000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.16142E+000 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes

5.90200E-002 5.93110E-001 6.42560E-001 8.80000E-004 3.75000E-002 3.45000E-002 0.00000E+000 7.69105E+001 7.69105E+001 2.48700E-002 0.00000E+000 7.75323E+001 Welders 3.38500E-002 1.55530E-001 1.74910E-001 2.50000E-004 8.60000E-003 8.60000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.86338E+001 1.86338E+001 2.75000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.87027E+001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1204
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 2.38500E-002 1.65840E-001 1.81230E-001 2.90000E-004 1.08900E-002 1.08900E-002 0.00000E+000 2.52772E+001 2.52772E+001 1.94000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.53258E+001 Cement and Mortar
Mixers

4.80000E-004 3.04000E-003 2.54000E-003 1.00000E-005 1.20000E-004 1.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.78080E-001 3.78080E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.79060E-001 Cranes 3.92600E-002 4.66800E-001 1.83190E-001 5.00000E-004 1.92400E-002 1.77000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.39123E+001 4.39123E+001 1.42000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.42674E+001 Excavators 1.35000E-003 1.32700E-002 1.79700E-002 3.00000E-005 6.40000E-004 5.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.49535E+000 2.49535E+000 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.51552E+000 Forklifts 4.27500E-002 3.85180E-001 3.50520E-001 4.50000E-004 2.86900E-002 2.63900E-002 0.00000E+000 3.98845E+001 3.98845E+001 1.29000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.02070E+001 Generator Sets 3.94900E-002 3.44230E-001 3.66840E-001 6.50000E-004 1.94100E-002 1.94100E-002 0.00000E+000 5.59555E+001 5.59555E+001 3.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 5.60342E+001 Graders 2.62000E-003 3.47900E-002 9.98000E-003 4.00000E-005 1.11000E-003 1.02000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.20685E+000 3.20685E+000 1.04000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.23278E+000 Pavers 1.44000E-003 1.54600E-002 1.59400E-002 3.00000E-005 7.50000E-004 6.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.27158E+000 2.27158E+000 7.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.28995E+000 Paving Equipment 1.71000E-003 1.76700E-002 2.09100E-002 3.00000E-005 8.80000E-004 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.95275E+000 2.95275E+000 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.97663E+000 Rollers 1.72000E-003 1.71700E-002 1.56200E-002 2.00000E-005 1.09000E-003 1.01000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.90150E+000 1.90150E+000 6.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.91688E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 5.94000E-003 6.23300E-002 2.27200E-002 5.00000E-005 3.05000E-003 2.81000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.12803E+000 4.12803E+000 1.34000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.16141E+000 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes

5.90200E-002 5.93110E-001 6.42560E-001 8.80000E-004 3.75000E-002 3.45000E-002 0.00000E+000 7.69104E+001 7.69104E+001 2.48700E-002 0.00000E+000 7.75323E+001 Welders 3.38500E-002 1.55530E-001 1.74910E-001 2.50000E-004 8.60000E-003 8.60000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.86338E+001 1.86338E+001 2.75000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.87026E+001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1205
Fugitive Dust Mitigation
No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved
Roads
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
No Replace Ground Cover of Area
Disturbed
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
No Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Frequency (per day)
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction
Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18684E-006 1.18684E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18456E-006 Cement and Mortar
Mixers

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Cranes 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.13863E-006 1.13863E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.12950E-006 Excavators 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.97531E-006 Forklifts 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.25362E-006 1.25362E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.24356E-006 Generator Sets 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.25099E-006 1.25099E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.24924E-006 Graders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.11832E-006 3.11832E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Pavers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 4.40220E-006 4.40220E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Paving Equipment 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.38666E-006 3.38666E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Rollers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.42246E-006 2.42246E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.40303E-006 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17019E-006 1.17019E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16081E-006 Welders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.07332E-006 1.07332E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.06937E-006 Yes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input Mitigation Input CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1206
No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content
%
Vehicle Speed (mph)

0.00 No Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00
Operational Percent Reduction Summary
Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction
Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Architectural Coating Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction Roads 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00Grading Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00Grading Roads 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1207
Category ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 80.00 79.89 80.52 80.00Hearth 99.83 46.15 99.65 100.00 99.19 99.19 100.00 -172.00 46.38 100.00 100.00 48.71Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mobile 0.52 0.83 1.25 2.01 1.62 1.73 0.00 1.77 1.77 1.18 0.00 1.77Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 10.68 10.78 10.99 11.20 10.89 Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Mobile Mitigation
MitigationSl td
NoNoNoNoNoNo
CategoryLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand Use % Reduction

0.000.000.000.250.000.000.14
Input Value 1

0.38 Measure Input Value 2 Input Value 3Increase DiversityLand Use SubTotalIntegrate Below Market Rate HousingIncrease Transit AccessibilityImprove Destination AccessibilityImprove Walkability DesignIncrease Density Project Setting: Low Density Suburban
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1208
Yes
Yes
No Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood EnhancementsNeighborhood Enhancements

0.00 2.00 Project Site and
Connecting OffSite

50.00 Implement NEV NetworkProvide Traffic Calming MeasuresImprove Pedestrian Network NoNoNoNoNoNo
Parking Policy PricingTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsParking Policy PricingParking Policy PricingParking Policy PricingNeighborhood Enhancements 0.02

0.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Limit Parking Supply 0.00Land Use and Site Enhancement SubtotalTransit Improvements SubtotalIncrease Transit FrequencyExpand Transit NetworkProvide BRT SystemParking Policy Pricing SubtotalOn-street Market PricingUnbundle Parking CostsNeighborhood Enhancements Subtotal NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo
CommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommute

0.005.000.000.000.003.00

2.00 Transit SubsidyCommute SubtotalProvide Ride Sharing ProgramEmployee Vanpool/ShuttleMarket Commute Trip Reduction OptionEncourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work SchedulesWorkplace Parking ChargeImplement Employee Parking "Cash Out"Implement Trip Reduction Program CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1209
Area Mitigation
Measure Implemented
NoNoNo
Yes
NoNoNoNoNoNo
Mitigation MeasureNo Hearth% Electric Chainsaw% Electric Leafblower% Electric LawnmowerUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)Use Low VOC Cleaning SuppliesOnly Natural Gas Hearth Input Value

0.000.000.00
150.00100.00150.00100.00
Energy Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
Yes
NoNo
Mitigation MeasureInstall High Efficiency LightingOn-site RenewableExceed Title 24 Input Value 1

0.000.000.00

80.00 Input Value 2
No School Trip Implement School Bus Program 0.00
Total VMT Reduction 0.02
No Use Low VOC Paint (Parking) 150.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1210
Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement
ClothWasher 30.00DishWasher 15.00Fan 50.00Refrigerator 15.00 Water Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
NoNoNo
Mitigation MeasureUse Reclaimed WaterUse Grey WaterApply Water Conservation on Strategy Input Value 1

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
Input Value 2
No
YesYes
No
Install low-flow bathroom faucetInstall low-flow ToiletInstall low-flow ShowerInstall low-flow Kitchen faucet

32.0018.0020.0020.00
NoNo
Yes
Turf ReductionWater Efficient LandscapeUse Water Efficient Irrigation Systems

0.006.100.00 0.00
Solid Waste Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Input Value
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1211
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 3:46 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1212

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Mitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1213
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Construction MitigationMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1214
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1215

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1216

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2293 380.2293 0.0698 0.0000 381.97392021 0.0114 0.0177 0.0193 3.0000e005 3.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 1.3500e- 003 9.0000e- 005 9.7000e- 004 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 2.9593 2.9593 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.9691 Maximum 0.4278 2.5976 2.1360 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.1324 0.2117 0.0304 0.1249 0.1554 0.0000 380.2293 380.2293 0.0698 0.0000 381.9739 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.2386 1.6143 2.2601 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.0106 0.0899 0.0304 0.0105 0.0409 0.0000 380.2290 380.2290 0.0698 0.0000 381.97362021 9.8300e003 0.0119 0.0200 3.0000e- 005 3.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 4.2000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.9593 2.9593 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 2.9690 Maximum 0.2386 1.6143 2.2601 4.3000e003 0.0793 0.0106 0.0899 0.0304 0.0105 0.0409 0.0000 380.2290 380.2290 0.0698 0.0000 381.9736 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

43.44 37.82 -5.79 0.00 0.00 92.03 57.63 0.00 91.61 73.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1217

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1393 2.2000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811 Energy 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 121.8840 121.8840 5.4300e- 003 2.3700e- 003 122.7268 Mobile 0.0656 0.2992 0.6199 1.9900e003 0.1649 1.8500e- 003 0.1667 0.0443 1.7300e- 003 0.0460 0.0000 182.7859 182.7859 7.6100e- 003 0.0000 182.9760 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0537 0.0000 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5028 1.1229 1.6257 0.0518 1.2400e003 3.2908 Total 0.2137 0.3791 0.7033 2.4900e003 0.1649 9.1900e- 003 0.1741 0.0443 9.0700e- 003 0.0533 4.6837 305.8381 310.5218 0.3046 3.6200e- 003 319.2176 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 3 1-26-2020 4-25-2020 0.6628 0.44944 4-26-2020 7-25-2020 0.8527 0.50585 7-26-2020 10-25-2020 0.8624 0.5117 6 10-26-2020 1-25-2021 0.6544 0.3928
Highest 0.8624 0.5117
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1218

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Energy 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 93.8561 93.8561 2.4200e- 003 1.7500e- 003 94.4376 Mobile 0.0653 0.2967 0.6121 1.9500e003 0.1616 1.8200e- 003 0.1634 0.0434 1.7000e- 003 0.0451 0.0000 179.5447 179.5447 7.5200e- 003 0.0000 179.7326 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.0537 0.0000 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4475 1.0030 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325 Total 0.2075 0.3766 0.6870 2.4300e003 0.1616 7.9300e- 003 0.1695 0.0434 7.8100e- 003 0.0512 4.5013 274.5029 279.0041 0.2956 2.8600e- 003 287.2456 Mitigated Operational3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

2.92 0.66 2.32 2.41 2.00 13.71 2.62 2.01 13.89 4.01 3.89 10.25 10.15 2.97 20.99 10.02 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1219
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 113 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1984 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.21
Acres of Paving: 0.72
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1220

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1221

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0355 0.0000 0.0355 0.0185 0.0000 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 7.0000e- 003 7.0000e- 003 6.4400e- 003 6.4400e- 003 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Total 0.0134 0.1451 0.0883 1.6000e004 0.0355 7.0000e- 003 0.0425 0.0185 6.4400e- 003 0.0249 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.2600e003 0.2193 0.0441 5.9000e- 004 0.0127 7.1000e- 004 0.0134 3.4800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.1600e- 003 0.0000 57.4780 57.4780 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 57.5520 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 Worker 2.7000e004 2.0000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5711 0.5711 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5715 Total 6.5300e003 0.2195 0.0461 6.0000e- 004 0.0133 7.1000e- 004 0.0140 3.6500e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 58.0491 58.0491 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 58.1234 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1222

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0355 0.0000 0.0355 0.0185 0.0000 0.0185 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.8600e003 0.0568 0.1045 1.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Total 2.8600e003 0.0568 0.1045 1.6000e- 004 0.0355 2.7000e- 004 0.0358 0.0185 2.7000e- 004 0.0188 0.0000 14.3323 14.3323 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 14.4482 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 6.2600e003 0.2193 0.0441 5.9000e- 004 0.0127 7.1000e- 004 0.0134 3.4800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.1600e- 003 0.0000 57.4780 57.4780 2.9600e- 003 0.0000 57.5520 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 Worker 2.7000e004 2.0000e- 004 2.0300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 6.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.6000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.5711 0.5711 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.5715 Total 6.5300e003 0.2195 0.0461 6.0000e- 004 0.0133 7.1000e- 004 0.0140 3.6500e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 58.0491 58.0491 2.9700e- 003 0.0000 58.1234 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1223

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.5100e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0754 Paving 9.4000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.4500e003 0.0649 0.0676 1.0000e- 004 3.5800e- 003 3.5800e- 003 3.3000e- 003 3.3000e- 003 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0754 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1224

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.6000e003 0.0432 0.0744 1.0000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0753 Paving 9.4000e004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.5400e003 0.0432 0.0744 1.0000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 9.0046 9.0046 2.8300e- 003 0.0000 9.0753 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 3.6000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.7000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7615 0.7615 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1225

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1358 228.1358 0.0557 0.0000 229.5273 Total 0.2088 1.8898 1.6596 2.6500e003 0.1100 0.1100 0.1035 0.1035 0.0000 228.1358 228.1358 0.0557 0.0000 229.5273 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 3.8100e003 0.1137 0.0286 2.7000e- 004 6.4600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.8700e- 003 5.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 25.7892 25.7892 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 25.8225 Worker 8.1600e003 5.8400e- 003 0.0605 1.9000e- 004 0.0195 1.3000e- 004 0.0196 5.1800e- 003 1.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 0.0000 17.0474 17.0474 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 17.0577 Total 0.0120 0.1195 0.0891 4.6000e004 0.0259 6.8000e- 004 0.0266 7.0500e- 003 6.5000e- 004 7.7000e- 003 0.0000 42.8366 42.8366 1.7400e- 003 0.0000 42.8802 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1226

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0526 1.0749 1.7606 2.6500e003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 0.0000 228.1356 228.1356 0.0557 0.0000 229.5270 Total 0.0526 1.0749 1.7606 2.6500e003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 8.3300e- 003 0.0000 228.1356 228.1356 0.0557 0.0000 229.5270 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 3.8100e003 0.1137 0.0286 2.7000e- 004 6.4600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 7.0100e- 003 1.8700e- 003 5.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 003 0.0000 25.7892 25.7892 1.3300e- 003 0.0000 25.8225 Worker 8.1600e003 5.8400e- 003 0.0605 1.9000e- 004 0.0195 1.3000e- 004 0.0196 5.1800e- 003 1.2000e- 004 5.3000e- 003 0.0000 17.0474 17.0474 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 17.0577 Total 0.0120 0.1195 0.0891 4.6000e004 0.0259 6.8000e- 004 0.0266 7.0500e- 003 6.5000e- 004 7.7000e- 003 0.0000 42.8366 42.8366 1.7400e- 003 0.0000 42.8802 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1227

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Total 9.5000e004 8.7200e- 003 8.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e- 004 4.8000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 2.0000e005 5.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1297 0.1297 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1298 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0835 0.0835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0836 Total 6.0000e005 5.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2132 0.2132 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2134 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1228

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 2.7000e004 5.4600e- 003 8.9400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Total 2.7000e004 5.4600e- 003 8.9400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1582 1.1582 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.1652 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 Vendor 2.0000e005 5.2000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1297 0.1297 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1298 Worker 4.0000e005 3.0000e- 005 2.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0835 0.0835 0.0000 0.0000 0.0836 Total 6.0000e005 5.5000e- 004 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2132 0.2132 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2134 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1229

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0226 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Total 0.1778 0.1574 0.1712 2.8000e004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Total 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1230

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1551 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.0900e003 0.0991 0.1713 2.8000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Total 0.1602 0.0991 0.1713 2.8000e004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 23.8729 23.8729 1.8500e- 003 0.0000 23.9191 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Total 1.5500e003 1.1100e- 003 0.0115 4.0000e- 005 3.6900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.7200e- 003 9.8000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 3.2364 3.2364 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.2384 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1231

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.1300e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.2000e003 8.4000e- 003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Total 0.0103 8.4000e003 0.0100 2.0000e- 005 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Total 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1232

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 9.1300e003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.0000e004 5.8300e- 003 0.0101 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Total 9.4300e003 5.8300e- 003 0.0101 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.4043 1.4043 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.4067 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 Worker 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Total 8.0000e005 6.0000e- 005 6.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1837 0.1837 0.0000 0.0000 0.1838 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1233
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0653 0.2967 0.6121 1.9500e003 0.1616 1.8200e- 003 0.1634 0.0434 1.7000e- 003 0.0451 0.0000 179.5447 179.5447 7.5200e- 003 0.0000 179.7326 Unmitigated 0.0656 0.2992 0.6199 1.9900e003 0.1649 1.8500e- 003 0.1667 0.0443 1.7300e- 003 0.0460 0.0000 182.7859 182.7859 7.6100e- 003 0.0000 182.9760

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1234
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1235
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0070 7.0070 7.5000e004 1.6000e- 004 7.0723 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 35.0348 35.0348 3.7700e003 7.8000e- 004 35.3615 NaturalGas
Mitigated

8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.5900e- 003 87.3653 NaturalGasUnmitigated

8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 6.0600e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.5900e- 003 87.3653

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 1.07873e
+006

5.8200e003 0.0529 0.0444 3.2000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 0.0000 57.5650 57.5650 1.1000e- 003 1.0600e- 003 57.9071 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 Quality
Restaurant
519700 2.8000e003 0.0255 0.0214 1.5000e- 004 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 0.0000 27.7332 27.7332 5.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 27.8980 Single Family
Housing
29065.1 1.6000e004 1.3400e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5510 1.5510 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.5602 Total 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.3653 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1236

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 1.07873e
+006

5.8200e003 0.0529 0.0444 3.2000e- 004 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 4.0200e- 003 0.0000 57.5650 57.5650 1.1000e- 003 1.0600e- 003 57.9071 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 Quality
Restaurant
519700 2.8000e003 0.0255 0.0214 1.5000e- 004 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 1.9400e- 003 0.0000 27.7332 27.7332 5.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 27.8980 Single Family
Housing
29065.1 1.6000e004 1.3400e- 003 5.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.5510 1.5510 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.5602 Total 8.7800e003 0.0797 0.0664 4.8000e- 004 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 6.0700e- 003 0.0000 86.8492 86.8492 1.6600e- 003 1.6000e- 003 87.3653 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1237

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 185509 22.6772 2.4400e003 5.0000e- 004 22.8887
Parking Lot 11200 1.3691 1.5000e004 3.0000e- 005 1.3819 Quality
Restaurant
81800 9.9995 1.0800e003 2.2000e- 004 10.0927
Single Family
Housing
8090.57 0.9890 1.1000e004 2.0000e- 005 0.9982
Total 35.0348 3.7800e003 7.7000e- 004 35.3615
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1238
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 37101.8 4.5354 4.9000e004 1.0000e- 004 4.5777
Parking Lot 2240 0.2738 3.0000e005 1.0000e- 005 0.2764 Quality
Restaurant
16360 1.9999 2.2000e004 4.0000e- 005 2.0186
Single Family
Housing
1618.11 0.1978 2.0000e005 0.0000 0.1997
Total 7.0070 7.6000e004 1.5000e- 004 7.0723
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1239
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Unmitigated 0.1393 2.2000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811

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

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 5.8900e003 1.3000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 1.2400e- 003 0.1271 0.0312 0.1583 2.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1665 Landscaping 3.2000e004 1.0000e- 004 8.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0141 0.0141 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.1393 2.3000e004 0.0170 2.0000e- 005 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 1.2800e- 003 0.1271 0.0454 0.1725 2.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 0.1811 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 28 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1240
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail

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

0.0164 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.1167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 1.0000e005 7.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0849 0.0849 0.0000 0.0000 0.0854 Landscaping 3.2000e004 1.0000e- 004 8.4700e- 003 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0141 0.0141 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.1334 1.7000e004 8.5000e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0990 0.0990 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 29 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1241
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325
Unmitigated 1.6257 0.0518 1.2400e003 3.2908

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 0.761003 /

0.0845559

0.7810 0.0249 6.0000e004 1.5804
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

0.758834 /

0.0484362

0.7634 0.0248 6.0000e004 1.5604
Single Family
Housing

0.065154 /

0.0410754

0.0813 2.1300e003 5.0000e- 005 0.1499
Total 1.6257 0.0518 1.2500e003 3.2908
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 30 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1242

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 0.677293 /

0.079398

0.6968 0.0221 5.3000e004 1.4084
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

0.675363 /

0.0454816

0.6804 0.0221 5.3000e004 1.3898
Single Family
Housing

0.0579871
/

0.0385698

0.0733 1.9000e003 5.0000e- 005 0.1343
Total 1.4505 0.0461 1.1100e003 2.9325
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 31 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1243
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429
Unmitigated 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0429
Category/Year8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 16.43 3.3351 0.1971 0.0000 8.2627
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

2.28 0.4628 0.0274 0.0000 1.1466
Single Family
Housing

1.26 0.2558 0.0151 0.0000 0.6337
Total 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0430
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 32 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1244

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 16.43 3.3351 0.1971 0.0000 8.2627
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Quality
Restaurant

2.28 0.4628 0.0274 0.0000 1.1466
Single Family
Housing

1.26 0.2558 0.0151 0.0000 0.6337
Total 4.0537 0.2396 0.0000 10.0430
Mitigated

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 33 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1245

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 34 of 34 Date: 7/26/2019 4:30 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1246

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Mitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1247
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Construction MitigationMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1248
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1249

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1250

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9604 1.4019 10.3623 4.0478 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 2021 3.9065 20.0487 19.3733 0.0350 0.3141 1.0565 1.3706 0.0849 0.9989 1.0838 0.0000 3,361.358 4 3,361.358
4 0.6542 0.0000 3,377.713
4 Maximum 4.1634 65.4781 24.2185 0.1394 8.9604 1.4019 10.3623 4.0478 1.2944 5.3423 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 2.3893 49.4249 27.1561 0.1394 8.9604 0.1769 9.1373 4.0478 0.1713 4.2191 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 2021 2.3746 13.0618 20.6868 0.0350 0.3141 0.0924 0.4065 0.0849 0.0921 0.1770 0.0000 3,361.358 4 3,361.358
4 0.6542 0.0000 3,377.713
4 Maximum 2.3893 49.4249 27.1561 0.1394 8.9604 0.1769 9.1373 4.0478 0.1713 4.2191 0.0000 14,597.19 54 14,597.19
54 1.5124 0.0000 14,635.00
44 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

40.97 26.94 -9.75 0.00 0.00 89.05 18.66 0.00 88.51 31.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1251

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.4198 1.6064 3.4267 0.0116 0.9412 0.0101 0.9514 0.2518 9.4900e003 0.2613 1,170.497 1 1,170.497 1 0.0456 1,171.638 1 Total 2.2371 2.0641 5.2249 0.0167 0.9412 0.2334 1.1746 0.2518 0.2327 0.4846 20.3783 1,701.421 2 1,721.799
5 0.0811 0.0111 1,727.121
4 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.4179 1.5936 3.3786 0.0114 0.9224 9.9700e003 0.9324 0.2468 9.3300e- 003 0.2561 1,149.697 5 1,149.697 5 0.0451 1,150.824 2 Total 1.2004 2.0445 3.8420 0.0141 0.9224 0.0448 0.9672 0.2468 0.0441 0.2909 0.0000 1,691.245 1 1,691.245
1 0.0557 9.9300e003 1,695.594 1
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1252

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 113 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1984 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

46.34 0.95 26.47 15.80 2.00 80.83 17.66 2.00 81.05 39.96 100.00 0.60 1.77 31.38 10.22 1.83 Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.21Acres of Paving: 0.72 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1253

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1254

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4549 0.0000 6.4549 3.3623 0.0000 3.3623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4549 1.2734 7.7284 3.3623 1.1716 4.5339 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1252 39.0606 7.7631 0.1085 2.3822 0.1277 2.5099 0.6528 0.1222 0.7750 11,601.593 8 11,601.593
8 0.5804 11,616.103
1 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 Worker 0.0521 0.0316 0.4025 1.2400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 123.1165 123.1165 2.9700e- 003 123.1907 Total 1.1774 39.0922 8.1655 0.1097 2.5055 0.1285 2.6339 0.6855 0.1229 0.8084 11,724.71 03 11,724.71
03 0.5833 11,739.29
38 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1255

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4549 0.0000 6.4549 3.3623 0.0000 3.3623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5200 10.3327 18.9906 0.0297 0.0484 0.0484 0.0484 0.0484 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 0.5200 10.3327 18.9906 0.0297 6.4549 0.0484 6.5034 3.3623 0.0484 3.4108 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1252 39.0606 7.7631 0.1085 2.3822 0.1277 2.5099 0.6528 0.1222 0.7750 11,601.593 8 11,601.593
8 0.5804 11,616.103
1 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 Worker 0.0521 0.0316 0.4025 1.2400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 123.1165 123.1165 2.9700e- 003 123.1907 Total 1.1774 39.0922 8.1655 0.1097 2.5055 0.1285 2.6339 0.6855 0.1229 0.8084 11,724.71 03 11,724.71
03 0.5833 11,739.29
38 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1256

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Total 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1257

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.2913 7.8490 13.5323 0.0189 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.4628 7.8490 13.5323 0.0189 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Total 0.0695 0.0421 0.5366 1.6500e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 164.1553 164.1553 3.9600e- 003 164.2542 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1258

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0379 1.1396 0.2718 2.7500e003 0.0677 5.5900e- 003 0.0733 0.0195 5.3400e- 003 0.0248 291.7081 291.7081 0.0144 292.0672 Worker 0.0869 0.0526 0.6708 2.0600e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 205.1941 205.1941 4.9400e- 003 205.3178 Total 0.1248 1.1922 0.9426 4.8100e003 0.2731 6.9200e- 003 0.2800 0.0740 6.5700e- 003 0.0805 496.9022 496.9022 0.0193 497.3849 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1259

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0379 1.1396 0.2718 2.7500e003 0.0677 5.5900e- 003 0.0733 0.0195 5.3400e- 003 0.0248 291.7081 291.7081 0.0144 292.0672 Worker 0.0869 0.0526 0.6708 2.0600e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 205.1941 205.1941 4.9400e- 003 205.3178 Total 0.1248 1.1922 0.9426 4.8100e003 0.2731 6.9200e- 003 0.2800 0.0740 6.5700e- 003 0.0805 496.9022 496.9022 0.0193 497.3849 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1260

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0310 1.0334 0.2437 2.7300e003 0.0677 2.2400e- 003 0.0699 0.0195 2.1400e- 003 0.0216 288.9585 288.9585 0.0136 289.2976 Worker 0.0804 0.0470 0.6141 1.9900e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 197.9899 197.9899 4.4300e- 003 198.1005 Total 0.1114 1.0804 0.8578 4.7200e003 0.2731 3.5300e- 003 0.2766 0.0740 3.3300e- 003 0.0773 486.9484 486.9484 0.0180 487.3981 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1261

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0310 1.0334 0.2437 2.7300e003 0.0677 2.2400e- 003 0.0699 0.0195 2.1400e- 003 0.0216 288.9585 288.9585 0.0136 289.2976 Worker 0.0804 0.0470 0.6141 1.9900e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 197.9899 197.9899 4.4300e- 003 198.1005 Total 0.1114 1.0804 0.8578 4.7200e003 0.2731 3.5300e- 003 0.2766 0.0740 3.3300e- 003 0.0773 486.9484 486.9484 0.0180 487.3981 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1262

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1263

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.7137 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Total 0.0174 0.0105 0.1342 4.1000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 41.0388 41.0388 9.9000e- 004 41.0636 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1264

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Total 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1265

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.7137 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Total 0.0161 9.4000e003 0.1228 4.0000e- 004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 39.5980 39.5980 8.9000e- 004 39.6201 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1266
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.4179 1.5936 3.3786 0.0114 0.9224 9.9700e003 0.9324 0.2468 9.3300e- 003 0.2561 1,149.697 5 1,149.697 5 0.0451 1,150.824 2 Unmitigated 0.4198 1.6064 3.4267 0.0116 0.9412 0.0101 0.9514 0.2518 9.4900e003 0.2613 1,170.497 1 1,170.497 1 0.0456 1,171.638 1

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1267
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1268
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2955.42 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant
1423.84 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

79.6304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1269
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2.95542 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant

1.42384 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

0.0796304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1270
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Unmitigated 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.0363 0.0200 1.3403 2.5200e003 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 20.3783 6.1765 26.5548 0.0252 1.4400e- 003 27.6133 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1271

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Install Low Flow ToiletInstall Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail8.0 Waste Detail

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.5400e003 0.0132 5.6000e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 16.8000 16.8000 3.2000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 16.8998 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1272

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:31 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1273

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 80.00 Space 0.72 32,000.00 0
Hotel 30.00 Room 3.21 24,345.00 0
Quality Restaurant 2.50 1000sqft 0.00 2,500.00 0
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 2,500.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Urban4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 2.2 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project CharacteristicsUtility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
269.5 0.029 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006(lb/MWhr)
Wine Country Inn Mitigated
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1274
Project Characteristics - RPS calculator
Land Use - site plan and applicantConstruction Phase - applicantGrading - applicantVehicle Trips - TISEnergy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Construction MitigationMobile Land Use Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - Water Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 7.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1275
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 198.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 11.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 11.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 5.50 3.21
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 12,000.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 43,560.00 24,345.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 2,500.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 3.21tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 269.5 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.35tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 78.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1276

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.35
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 78.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 9.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.35tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 78.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1277

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9604 1.4041 10.3645 4.0478 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 2021 3.9140 20.0709 19.3623 0.0348 0.3141 1.0566 1.3707 0.0849 0.9990 1.0839 0.0000 3,335.300 1 3,335.300
1 0.6550 0.0000 3,351.673
9 Maximum 4.1714 66.4441 24.7883 0.1375 8.9604 1.4041 10.3645 4.0478 1.2966 5.3444 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2020 2.3973 50.3909 27.7259 0.1375 8.9604 0.1791 9.1395 4.0478 0.1734 4.2213 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 2021 2.3822 13.0840 20.6757 0.0348 0.3141 0.0924 0.4066 0.0849 0.0922 0.1771 0.0000 3,335.300 1 3,335.300
1 0.6550 0.0000 3,351.673
9 Maximum 2.3973 50.3909 27.7259 0.1375 8.9604 0.1791 9.1395 4.0478 0.1734 4.2213 0.0000 14,392.62 55 14,392.62
55 1.5413 0.0000 14,431.15
90 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

40.89 26.63 -9.63 0.00 0.00 88.96 18.65 0.00 88.43 31.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1278

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.3568 1.6637 3.6248 0.0108 0.9412 0.0103 0.9515 0.2518 9.6000e003 0.2614 1,094.677 4 1,094.677 4 0.0478 1,095.871 5 Total 2.1740 2.1214 5.4229 0.0160 0.9412 0.2335 1.1747 0.2518 0.2328 0.4847 20.3783 1,625.601 5 1,645.979
8 0.0832 0.0111 1,651.354
8 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Energy 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 Mobile 0.3549 1.6496 3.5819 0.0106 0.9224 0.0101 0.9325 0.2468 9.4400e003 0.2562 1,075.164 4 1,075.164 4 0.0472 1,076.344 8 Total 1.1374 2.1005 4.0454 0.0133 0.9224 0.0449 0.9673 0.2468 0.0442 0.2910 0.0000 1,616.711 9 1,616.711
9 0.0578 9.9300e003 1,621.114 7
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1279

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Grading Grading 3/2/2020 3/16/2020 5 112 Paving Paving 3/17/2020 3/31/2020 5 113 Building Construction Building Construction 4/1/2020 1/1/2021 5 1984 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 198 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

47.68 0.99 25.40 16.53 2.00 80.78 17.66 2.00 81.01 39.96 100.00 0.55 1.78 30.55 10.22 1.83 Residential Indoor: 5,063; Residential Outdoor: 1,688; Non-Residential Indoor: 40,268; Non-Residential Outdoor: 13,423; Striped Parking Area: 1,920 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3.21Acres of Paving: 0.72 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1280

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 132 0.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 1,500.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 9 25.00 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1281

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4549 0.0000 6.4549 3.3623 0.0000 3.3623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 1.2734 1.2734 1.1716 1.1716 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 2.4288 26.3859 16.0530 0.0297 6.4549 1.2734 7.7284 3.3623 1.1716 4.5339 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1560 40.0192 8.3573 0.1067 2.3822 0.1299 2.5121 0.6528 0.1243 0.7771 11,406.730 6 11,406.730
6 0.6096 11,421.969
2 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 Worker 0.0552 0.0390 0.3780 1.1400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 113.4098 113.4098 2.7700e- 003 113.4792 Total 1.2112 40.0582 8.7353 0.1078 2.5055 0.1307 2.6362 0.6855 0.1250 0.8105 11,520.14 04 11,520.14
04 0.6123 11,535.44
84 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1282

3.2 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.4549 0.0000 6.4549 3.3623 0.0000 3.3623 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5200 10.3327 18.9906 0.0297 0.0484 0.0484 0.0484 0.0484 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Total 0.5200 10.3327 18.9906 0.0297 6.4549 0.0484 6.5034 3.3623 0.0484 3.4108 0.0000 2,872.485 1 2,872.485
1 0.9290 2,895.710
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.1560 40.0192 8.3573 0.1067 2.3822 0.1299 2.5121 0.6528 0.1243 0.7771 11,406.730 6 11,406.730
6 0.6096 11,421.969
2 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 Worker 0.0552 0.0390 0.3780 1.1400e003 0.1232 8.0000e- 004 0.1240 0.0327 7.4000e- 004 0.0334 113.4098 113.4098 2.7700e- 003 113.4792 Total 1.2112 40.0582 8.7353 0.1078 2.5055 0.1307 2.6362 0.6855 0.1250 0.8105 11,520.14 04 11,520.14
04 0.6123 11,535.44
84 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1283

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.1837 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3552 11.8015 12.2823 0.0189 0.6509 0.6509 0.6005 0.6005 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1284

3.3 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.2913 7.8490 13.5323 0.0189 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Paving 0.1715 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.4628 7.8490 13.5323 0.0189 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0293 0.0000 1,804.707 0 1,804.707
0 0.5670 1,818.883
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Total 0.0735 0.0520 0.5040 1.5200e003 0.1643 1.0600e- 003 0.1654 0.0436 9.8000e- 004 0.0446 151.2131 151.2131 3.7000e- 003 151.3055 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1285

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 2.1198 19.1860 16.8485 0.0269 1.1171 1.1171 1.0503 1.0503 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0399 1.1524 0.3110 2.6900e003 0.0677 5.6800e- 003 0.0734 0.0195 5.4300e- 003 0.0249 284.3272 284.3272 0.0155 284.7157 Worker 0.0919 0.0650 0.6300 1.9000e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 189.0164 189.0164 4.6200e- 003 189.1319 Total 0.1318 1.2174 0.9410 4.5900e003 0.2731 7.0100e- 003 0.2801 0.0740 6.6600e- 003 0.0806 473.3436 473.3436 0.0202 473.8476 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1286

3.4 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Total 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.063 1 2,553.063
1 0.6229 2,568.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0399 1.1524 0.3110 2.6900e003 0.0677 5.6800e- 003 0.0734 0.0195 5.4300e- 003 0.0249 284.3272 284.3272 0.0155 284.7157 Worker 0.0919 0.0650 0.6300 1.9000e003 0.2054 1.3300e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.2300e- 003 0.0557 189.0164 189.0164 4.6200e- 003 189.1319 Total 0.1318 1.2174 0.9410 4.5900e003 0.2731 7.0100e- 003 0.2801 0.0740 6.6600e- 003 0.0806 473.3436 473.3436 0.0202 473.8476 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1287

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 1.9009 17.4321 16.5752 0.0269 0.9586 0.9586 0.9013 0.9013 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0329 1.0423 0.2801 2.6600e003 0.0677 2.3200e- 003 0.0700 0.0195 2.2200e- 003 0.0217 281.6272 281.6272 0.0147 281.9940 Worker 0.0852 0.0580 0.5745 1.8300e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 182.3842 182.3842 4.1300e- 003 182.4873 Total 0.1180 1.1003 0.8546 4.4900e003 0.2731 3.6100e- 003 0.2767 0.0740 3.4100e- 003 0.0774 464.0113 464.0113 0.0188 464.4813 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1288

3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Total 0.5335 10.9122 17.8738 0.0269 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0846 0.0000 2,553.363 9 2,553.363
9 0.6160 2,568.764
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 Vendor 0.0329 1.0423 0.2801 2.6600e003 0.0677 2.3200e- 003 0.0700 0.0195 2.2200e- 003 0.0217 281.6272 281.6272 0.0147 281.9940 Worker 0.0852 0.0580 0.5745 1.8300e003 0.2054 1.2900e- 003 0.2067 0.0545 1.1900e- 003 0.0557 182.3842 182.3842 4.1300e- 003 182.4873 Total 0.1180 1.1003 0.8546 4.4900e003 0.2731 3.6100e- 003 0.2767 0.0740 3.4100e- 003 0.0774 464.0113 464.0113 0.0188 464.4813 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1289

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2422 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.9014 1.6838 1.8314 2.9700e003 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1290

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Total 1.7137 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0218 281.9928 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Total 0.0184 0.0130 0.1260 3.8000e004 0.0411 2.7000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.5000e- 004 0.0111 37.8033 37.8033 9.2000e- 004 37.8264 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1291

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2189 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.8781 1.5268 1.8176 2.9700e003 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 0.0941 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Total 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1292

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.6592 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0545 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Total 1.7137 1.0598 1.8324 2.9700e003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 3.9600e- 003 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0193 281.9309 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
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 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 Worker 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Total 0.0170 0.0116 0.1149 3.7000e004 0.0411 2.6000e- 004 0.0413 0.0109 2.4000e- 004 0.0111 36.4768 36.4768 8.3000e- 004 36.4975 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1293
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.3549 1.6496 3.5819 0.0106 0.9224 0.0101 0.9325 0.2468 9.4400e003 0.2562 1,075.164 4 1,075.164 4 0.0472 1,076.344 8 Unmitigated 0.3568 1.6637 3.6248 0.0108 0.9412 0.0103 0.9515 0.2518 9.6000e003 0.2614 1,094.677 4 1,094.677 4 0.0478 1,095.871 5

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile4.2 Trip Summary Information4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 100.50 100.50 100.50 190,943 187,124
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Restaurant 195.00 195.00 195.00 231,303 226,676 Single Family Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 20,786 20,371
Total 304.50 304.50 304.50 443,032 434,171
Improve Pedestrian NetworkProvide Traffic Calming Measures CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1294
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Quality Restaurant 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyPercent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Parking Lot 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Quality Restaurant 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Single Family Housing 0.576985 0.039376 0.193723 0.112069 0.016317 0.005358 0.017943 0.025814 0.002614 0.002274 0.005874 0.000887 0.000768 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1295
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917 NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6200e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6200e- 003 527.6917

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2955.42 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant
1423.84 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

79.6304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 23 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1296
Use only Natural Gas Hearths

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area6.0 Area Detail5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 2.95542 0.0319 0.2898 0.2434 1.7400e003 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 347.6960 347.6960 6.6600e- 003 6.3700e- 003 349.7622 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 Quality
Restaurant

1.42384 0.0154 0.1396 0.1173 8.4000e004 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 0.0106 167.5101 167.5101 3.2100e- 003 3.0700e- 003 168.5055 Single Family
Housing

0.0796304 8.6000e004 7.3400e- 003 3.1200e- 003 5.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 5.9000e- 004 9.3683 9.3683 1.8000e- 004 1.7000e- 004 9.4240 Total 0.0481 0.4367 0.3638 2.6300e003 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 0.0332 524.5744 524.5744 0.0101 9.6100e- 003 527.6917 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 24 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1297
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Unmitigated 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.0363 0.0200 1.3403 2.5200e003 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 0.1895 20.3783 6.1765 26.5548 0.0252 1.4400e- 003 27.6133 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 1.7692 0.0210 1.4344 2.5300e003 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 0.1900 20.3783 6.3496 26.7280 0.0254 1.4400e- 003 27.7916 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 25 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1298

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Install Low Flow ToiletInstall Low Flow ShowerUse Water Efficient Irrigation System7.1 Mitigation Measures Water7.0 Water Detail8.0 Waste Detail

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

0.0900 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.6393 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 1.5400e003 0.0132 5.6000e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 16.8000 16.8000 3.2000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 16.8998 Landscaping 3.5600e003 1.0600e- 003 0.0941 1.0000e- 005 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 5.0000e- 004 0.1732 0.1732 2.1000e- 004 0.1784 Total 0.7344 0.0142 0.0997 9.0000e005 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 16.9732 16.9732 5.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 17.0782 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 26 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1299

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 27 of 27 Date: 7/26/2019 4:32 PM Wine Country Inn Mitigated - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1300
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Mitigation Report
Wine Country Inn Mitigated
Construction Mitigation Summary
Phase ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.10 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction 0.71 0.41 -0.06 0.00 0.92 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Grading 0.53 0.24 -0.12 0.00 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving 0.63 0.33 -0.10 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OFFROAD Equipment MitigationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1301
Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF Oxidation Catalyst Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2 2 No Change 0.00Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3 3 No Change 0.00Generator Sets Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2 2 No Change 0.00Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2 2 No Change 0.00Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 7 7 No Change 0.00Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1 1 No Change 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1302
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 2.38500E-002 1.65840E-001 1.81230E-001 2.90000E-004 1.08900E-002 1.08900E-002 0.00000E+000 2.52772E+001 2.52772E+001 1.94000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.53258E+001 Cement and
Mortar Mixers

4.80000E-004 3.04000E-003 2.54000E-003 1.00000E-005 1.20000E-004 1.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.78080E-001 3.78080E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.79060E-001 Cranes 3.92600E-002 4.66800E-001 1.83190E-001 5.00000E-004 1.92400E-002 1.77000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.39124E+001 4.39124E+001 1.42000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.42675E+001 Excavators 1.35000E-003 1.32700E-002 1.79700E-002 3.00000E-005 6.40000E-004 5.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.49535E+000 2.49535E+000 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.51553E+000 Forklifts 4.27500E-002 3.85180E-001 3.50520E-001 4.50000E-004 2.86900E-002 2.63900E-002 0.00000E+000 3.98845E+001 3.98845E+001 1.29000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.02070E+001 Generator Sets 3.94900E-002 3.44230E-001 3.66840E-001 6.50000E-004 1.94100E-002 1.94100E-002 0.00000E+000 5.59555E+001 5.59555E+001 3.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 5.60343E+001 Graders 2.62000E-003 3.47900E-002 9.98000E-003 4.00000E-005 1.11000E-003 1.02000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.20686E+000 3.20686E+000 1.04000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.23278E+000 Pavers 1.44000E-003 1.54600E-002 1.59400E-002 3.00000E-005 7.50000E-004 6.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.27159E+000 2.27159E+000 7.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.28995E+000 Paving Equipment 1.71000E-003 1.76700E-002 2.09100E-002 3.00000E-005 8.80000E-004 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.95276E+000 2.95276E+000 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.97663E+000 Rollers 1.72000E-003 1.71700E-002 1.56200E-002 2.00000E-005 1.09000E-003 1.01000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.90150E+000 1.90150E+000 6.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.91688E+000 Rubber Tired
Dozers

5.94000E-003 6.23300E-002 2.27200E-002 5.00000E-005 3.05000E-003 2.81000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.12804E+000 4.12804E+000 1.34000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.16142E+000 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes

5.90200E-002 5.93110E-001 6.42560E-001 8.80000E-004 3.75000E-002 3.45000E-002 0.00000E+000 7.69105E+001 7.69105E+001 2.48700E-002 0.00000E+000 7.75323E+001 Welders 3.38500E-002 1.55530E-001 1.74910E-001 2.50000E-004 8.60000E-003 8.60000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.86338E+001 1.86338E+001 2.75000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.87027E+001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1303
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 5.39000E-003 1.04920E-001 1.81410E-001 2.90000E-004 3.90000E-004 3.90000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.52772E+001 2.52772E+001 1.94000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.53258E+001 Cement and Mortar
Mixers

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.78080E-001 3.78080E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.79060E-001 Cranes 8.19000E-003 1.32030E-001 2.66100E-001 5.00000E-004 8.20000E-004 8.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 4.39123E+001 4.39123E+001 1.42000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.42674E+001 Excavators 3.50000E-004 1.25200E-002 2.15500E-002 3.00000E-005 5.00000E-005 5.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.49535E+000 2.49535E+000 8.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.51552E+000 Forklifts 1.02600E-002 1.99530E-001 3.44990E-001 4.50000E-004 7.50000E-004 7.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.98845E+001 3.98845E+001 1.29000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.02070E+001 Generator Sets 1.19400E-002 2.32260E-001 4.01580E-001 6.50000E-004 8.70000E-004 8.70000E-004 0.00000E+000 5.59555E+001 5.59555E+001 3.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 5.60342E+001 Graders 5.90000E-004 9.59000E-003 1.93400E-002 4.00000E-005 6.00000E-005 6.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.20685E+000 3.20685E+000 1.04000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.23278E+000 Pavers 3.20000E-004 1.13900E-002 1.96000E-002 3.00000E-005 4.00000E-005 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.27158E+000 2.27158E+000 7.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.28995E+000 Paving Equipment 4.10000E-004 1.48700E-002 2.55800E-002 3.00000E-005 6.00000E-005 6.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.95275E+000 2.95275E+000 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.97663E+000 Rollers 4.90000E-004 9.47000E-003 1.63700E-002 2.00000E-005 4.00000E-005 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 1.90150E+000 1.90150E+000 6.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.91688E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 7.70000E-004 1.23600E-002 2.49200E-002 5.00000E-005 8.00000E-005 8.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 4.12803E+000 4.12803E+000 1.34000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.16141E+000 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes

1.96300E-002 3.81830E-001 6.60170E-001 8.80000E-004 1.43000E-003 1.43000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.69104E+001 7.69104E+001 2.48700E-002 0.00000E+000 7.75323E+001 Welders 4.34000E-003 1.64450E-001 1.48190E-001 2.50000E-004 4.63000E-003 4.63000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.86338E+001 1.86338E+001 2.75000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.87026E+001 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1304
Fugitive Dust Mitigation
No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved
Roads
PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction 0.00
No Replace Ground Cover of Area
Disturbed
PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction 0.00
No Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction 0.00 Frequency (per day)
Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction
Air Compressors 7.74004E-001 3.67342E-001 -9.93213E-004 0.00000E+000 9.64187E-001 9.64187E-001 0.00000E+000 1.18684E-006 1.18684E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18456E-006 Cement and Mortar
Mixers

1.00000E+000 1.00000E+000 1.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.00000E+000 1.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Cranes 7.91391E-001 7.17159E-001 -4.52590E-001 0.00000E+000 9.57380E-001 9.53672E-001 0.00000E+000 1.13863E-006 1.13863E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.12950E-006 Excavators 7.40741E-001 5.65185E-002 -1.99221E-001 0.00000E+000 9.21875E-001 9.15254E-001 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.97531E-006 Forklifts 7.60000E-001 4.81982E-001 1.57766E-002 0.00000E+000 9.73858E-001 9.71580E-001 0.00000E+000 1.25362E-006 1.25362E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.24356E-006 Generator Sets 6.97645E-001 3.25277E-001 -9.47007E-002 0.00000E+000 9.55178E-001 9.55178E-001 0.00000E+000 1.25099E-006 1.25099E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.24924E-006 Graders 7.74809E-001 7.24346E-001 -9.37876E-001 0.00000E+000 9.45946E-001 9.41176E-001 0.00000E+000 3.11832E-006 3.11832E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Pavers 7.77778E-001 2.63260E-001 -2.29611E-001 0.00000E+000 9.46667E-001 9.42029E-001 0.00000E+000 4.40220E-006 4.40220E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Paving Equipment 7.60234E-001 1.58461E-001 -2.23338E-001 0.00000E+000 9.31818E-001 9.25926E-001 0.00000E+000 3.38666E-006 3.38666E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Rollers 7.15116E-001 4.48457E-001 -4.80154E-002 0.00000E+000 9.63303E-001 9.60396E-001 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 8.70370E-001 8.01701E-001 -9.68310E-002 0.00000E+000 9.73770E-001 9.71530E-001 0.00000E+000 2.42246E-006 2.42246E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.40303E-006 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes

6.67401E-001 3.56224E-001 -2.74060E-002 0.00000E+000 9.61867E-001 9.58551E-001 0.00000E+000 1.17019E-006 1.17019E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16081E-006 Welders 8.71787E-001 -5.73523E-002 1.52764E-001 0.00000E+000 4.61628E-001 4.61628E-001 0.00000E+000 1.07332E-006 1.07332E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.06937E-006 Yes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input Mitigation Input CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1305
No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content
%

0.00 Vehicle Speed
(mph)

0.00 No Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00
Operational Percent Reduction Summary
Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction
Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Architectural Coating Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Building Construction Roads 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00Grading Fugitive Dust 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00Grading Roads 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Paving Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1306
Category ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 80.00 79.89 80.52 80.00Hearth 99.83 46.15 99.65 100.00 99.19 99.19 100.00 -172.00 46.38 100.00 100.00 48.71Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mobile 0.52 0.83 1.25 2.01 1.62 1.73 0.00 1.77 1.77 1.18 0.00 1.77Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 10.68 10.78 10.99 11.20 10.89 Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Mobile Mitigation
MitigationSl td
NoNoNoNoNoNo
CategoryLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand UseLand Use % Reduction

0.000.000.000.250.000.000.14
Input Value 1

0.38 Measure Input Value 2 Input Value 3Increase DiversityLand Use SubTotalIntegrate Below Market Rate HousingIncrease Transit AccessibilityImprove Destination AccessibilityImprove Walkability DesignIncrease Density Project Setting: Low Density Suburban
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1307
Yes
Yes
No Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood EnhancementsNeighborhood Enhancements

0.00 2.00 Project Site and
Connecting OffSite

50.00 Implement NEV NetworkProvide Traffic Calming MeasuresImprove Pedestrian Network NoNoNoNoNoNo
Parking Policy PricingTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsTransit ImprovementsParking Policy PricingParking Policy PricingParking Policy PricingNeighborhood Enhancements 0.02

0.020.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
Limit Parking Supply 0.00Land Use and Site Enhancement SubtotalTransit Improvements SubtotalIncrease Transit FrequencyExpand Transit NetworkProvide BRT SystemParking Policy Pricing SubtotalOn-street Market PricingUnbundle Parking CostsNeighborhood Enhancements Subtotal NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo
CommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommuteCommute

0.005.000.000.000.003.00

2.00 Transit SubsidyCommute SubtotalProvide Ride Sharing ProgramEmployee Vanpool/ShuttleMarket Commute Trip Reduction OptionEncourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work SchedulesWorkplace Parking ChargeImplement Employee Parking "Cash Out"Implement Trip Reduction Program CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1308
Area Mitigation
Measure Implemented
NoNoNo
Yes
NoNoNoNoNoNo
Mitigation MeasureNo Hearth% Electric Chainsaw% Electric Leafblower% Electric LawnmowerUse Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)Use Low VOC Cleaning SuppliesOnly Natural Gas Hearth Input Value

0.000.000.00
150.00100.00150.00100.00
Energy Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
Yes
NoNo
Mitigation MeasureInstall High Efficiency LightingOn-site RenewableExceed Title 24 Input Value 1

0.000.000.00

80.00 Input Value 2
No School Trip Implement School Bus Program 0.00
Total VMT Reduction 0.02
No Use Low VOC Paint (Parking) 150.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1309
Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement
ClothWasher 30.00DishWasher 15.00Fan 50.00Refrigerator 15.00 Water Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
NoNoNo
Mitigation MeasureUse Reclaimed WaterUse Grey WaterApply Water Conservation on Strategy Input Value 1

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
Input Value 2
No
YesYes
No
Install low-flow bathroom faucetInstall low-flow ToiletInstall low-flow ShowerInstall low-flow Kitchen faucet

32.0018.0020.0020.00
NoNo
Yes
Turf ReductionWater Efficient LandscapeUse Water Efficient Irrigation Systems

0.006.100.00 0.00
Solid Waste Mitigation
Mitigation Measures Input Value
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1310
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 11 Date: 7/26/2019 4:34 PM ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT
B
1311

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY BIOLOGICAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1312
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1313
IB. Note that this Report does not provide an overview/summary of any proposed project at the Site, as my understanding is that none currently exists.

IC. In sum, this Report addresses Management Action 3 and, in so doing, provides you diverse regulatory measures associated with potential ''Biological Constraints" at the Site. Important advisories in relation to the Site's "Biological Constraints" appear in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section, below.

ID. Key to the "Biological Constraints" during my Survey was assessment of a currently dry watercourse on the south side of the Site. Note my following assessment conclusion is supported by photos present in Appendix A, below: a) the watercourse should not be considered a wetland easement because it does not qualify for a wetland based on the fact none of the three conditions for a wetland- soil properties; vegetation species composition; and the presence of water - were present during the Survey nor do I believe water collects and pools within the lowland portion of this area on the Site's border.

One reason for the dry nature of the watercourse relates to the excellent drainage provided by infrastructure drains on the eastern edge of the Site. The drainage includes pipes that flow into a large water drain (see photos in Appendix A). In addition, connection of the watercourse toward the east onto another parcel on the east side of Arroyo Road supports my contention that no wetland conditions exist in this area. This parcel also possesses excellent drainage conditions so that no intermittent, ephemeral and/or perennial water conditions likely occur on the Site or adjacent to it at any month of a calendar year.

In summary, among potential "Biological Constraints" I assessed, I do not believe a wetland resource/wetland presence occurs on the south side of the Site. More specific:

The photos in Appendix A are meant to serve as pictorial proof along with my narrative here that the Site hosts no jurisdictional or other wetland areas subject to either local, state, or federal regulatory compliance measures.

Additional photos in Appendix A illuminate other information present in this Report. See below for more details, including the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section.

II. SUMMARY OF HIGHLIGHTS & CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT:

Below, I provide details of my following conclusion based on the Survey and pre-Survey research I conducted:

I do not believe Biological Constraint issues related to plant, wildlife and wetland resources/wetland easements exist at the Site. As a result, I do not forsee the need for the City of Livermore's Planning Department to ensure enforcement occurs for any current regulatory compliance measures related to local, state, and federal regulatory measure related to wetland resources and biological resources - nor do I believe future, related wetland and biological resource regulatory measures will arise if and when the Site is developed beyond its current habitat status.

Michelle Boss Report 2 danieledels [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1314
As mentioned, see the attached photos, especially ones related to the lowland area on the Site that you mentioned as a potential wetland resource/wetland easement area. I am confident these photos provide evidence for my contention in this Report: the Site does not host wetland resources and no regulatory compliance measures should be applied in terms of you need a wetland-related permit from state and/or federal agencies.

III. METHOD & RESULTS OF SURVEY AT THE SITE:

To ensure I successfully precisely evaluated potential Biological Constraints at the Site, my recent Survey was conducted from 8:00 am- noon on the Site. It included conducting walking the entire Site and, in addition, portions bordering it so I could evaluate the potential presence of wetland resources/wetland easements. See below for more details. See Appendix C for the results of my Survey in terms of observed bird and other wildlife species.

Before visiting the Site, I conducted research to ensure I knew if the Site could potentially host rare plant and wildlife species. This research included conducting an online query of the Site via a rare plant and wildlife database called the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

See attached file- "APP. D - CNDDB QUERY - 19952 Hansen Rd., Livermore, CA 94550-1-6-19.pdf')
This file is a list of the rare plant and wildlife species that occur in the region within which the Site exists, according to the a United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' quadrangle regional map within which the Site exists. This map is titled Altamont.

In this regard, note that my CNDDB query within the Altamont map did not yield previous reported observations of either rare, special status plant or wildlife species on the Site. In addition, based on the habitat quality of the Site, I do not believe it or nearby parcels within 500 feet of it currently or during the spring/summer will likely host any rare plant and/or breeding rare, special-status breeding wildlife species that require protection under CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulatory measures.

Below, I highlight wildlife species from my CNDDB query that are present in the Livermore region, but have no or low potential for occurrence on the Site (see Appendix C)* - the majority of which are rare, listed wildlife species that do not typically occur within one or miles from the Site. Note that none of the wildlife species present below were seen during my Survey. (* = "Listed" species are designated as either state or federally threatened or endangered species based on the judgment of biologists at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), respectively.) The primary reason the Site is devoid of the species noted below is because suitable roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat is absent at the Site, which is dominated by disturbed, ruderal nonnative grassland habitat. This kind of habitat offers low foraging value to the wildlife species appearing below, with the other Site's vegetation - vineyards - also offering less than attractive natural habitat as an attractant for the species mentioned below.

Michelle Boss Report 3 danie lede ls [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 19

EXHIBIT B
1315
In sum, based on the Site's unsuitable natural habit conditions, none of the following wildlife species are currently present on the Site or within 500 feet of it - nor would I expect them to occur on the Site or nearby it in the future:

American Badger (Taxidea taxus)
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallida)
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) (non-breeding on Site) Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum)
Western Spadefoot (Toad) (Spea hammondii)
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii)
Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata)
As for the Site's plant species, during my Survey I determined that the existing flora species on the Site are likely all common plant species. In other words, no rare and/or listed plant species were detected during my Survey.