Based on the above information, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than what were previously analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
aiii, aiv,
c. The 2018 INSP EIR determined that the potential hazards of unstable soil or geologic units, liquefaction, or landslides would be addressed through the integration of geotechnical information into the planning and design process for future projects within the INSP area. Geotechnical investigations for specific projects within the INSP area would be required to thoroughly evaluate site-specific geotechnical characteristics such as subsurface soils and bedrock to assess potential hazards and recommend site preparation and design measures to address any hazards which may be present. Such measures would be enforced through compliance with CBSC requirements to avoid or reduce hazards relating to unstable soils and slope failure or Caltrans standards.
Therefore, with compliance with standard industry practices and State requirements, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse resulting from implementation of the INSP would be less than significant.
EXHIBIT B
335
According to Figure 3.12-2 of the 2018 INSP EIR, the project site is located in an area with low potential for liquefaction hazards. Most areas bordering the Arroyo Las Positas and Collier Canyon Creek are at very high risk of liquefaction due to the presence of soils that are often saturated or characteristic of wetlands. However, as noted in the 2018 INSP EIR, the majority of the high-risk areas, including the portion adjacent to the project site, would be preserved as open space and would not be developed with buildings or roadways.
Landslides may occur on slopes of 15 percent or less; however, the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as steep slopes or banks, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges. Landslide-susceptible areas are characterized by steep slopes and downslope creep of surface materials. According to Figure 3.12-3 of the 2018 INSP EIR, the project site is located on an area with slopes between zero and 10 percent. 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, based on the Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D)14, localized areas of undocumented fill should be expected, especially in areas of past development. Existing underground improvements, such as buried utilities or tanks, will need to be removed or demolished during construction. 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 Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations 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. The recommendations included therein are consistent with typical engineering practices required pursuant to the CBSC. 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.
Therefore, compliance with all applicable INSP policies, as well as implementation of common engineering practices pursuant to the CBSC, 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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR. b. The 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’s potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and determined that construction associated with the INSP would include earthwork activities that could expose soils to the effects of erosion or loss of topsoil.
Livermore Development Code Section 4.02.080, Grading Activities, requires a CUP for grading activities within a flood hazard zone or within 150 feet of the top of the bank of any creek, arroyo, or drainage channel. Because a portion of the proposed townhomes and 14 Cornerstone Earth Group. Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Cornerstone Church and Chu Properties Livermore, California. October 25, 2022.
EXHIBIT B
336
the apartment building would be located within 150 feet of the top of the Collier Creek bank, approval of a CUP for grading activities would be required for the proposed project.
The CUP would include measures to protect exposed soils. A CUP for other grading activities that could potentially lead to erosion and ground movement would also be required. The 2018 INSP EIR determined that compliance with the grading ordinance or Caltrans standards would minimize erosion impacts.
In addition, construction that disturbs more than one acre would be subject to compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The NPDES permit requires implementation of BMPs and a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). BMPs that are required under a SWPPP include erosion prevention measures that have proven effective in limiting soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Generally, once construction is complete and exposed areas are revegetated or covered by buildings, asphalt, or concrete, the erosion hazard is substantially eliminated or reduced. The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable codes and regulations would reduce the potential for substantial soil erosion or topsoil loss to be less than significant.
The currently proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP. Moreover, the INSP assumed the development of residential uses on the project site. The proposed project would be subject to all applicable regulations, such as the CBSC. In addition, accordance with 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. 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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP 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 2018 INSP EIR, soils present in the INSP area have moderate to high expansion potential. The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that compliance with applicable State and local building codes would ensure that development in the INSP area would not result in hazards due to expansive soils, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Based on the Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations, expansive clay was observed near the surface of the project site. Therefore, recommendations included that slabs-on-grade should have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill; foundations should be designed to extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation or to resist uplift forces; and moisture changes in the surficial soils should be limited by using positive drainage away from the building as well as limiting landscaping watering. The proposed project would be conditioned by the City of Livermore to adhere to all geotechnical recommendations prior
EXHIBIT B
337
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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
e. Because future development within the INSP 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, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that no impact would occur related to the location of structures on soils incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
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 2018 INSP EIR. As such, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
f. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, vertebrate fossils have been recovered from geologic units in the Livermore vicinity, making the INSP area highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Paleontological resources may be present in construction areas at ground surface and at excavation depths in sensitive geologic units. However, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that with implementation of INSP Policies P-ENV-35 and P-ENV-36, impacts to paleontological resources, site, or unique geological features would be less than significant. The policies requires future project proponents to engage a qualified paleontologist to monitor for discovery of paleontological resources, evaluate found resources, and prepare and follow a recovery plan if necessary.
Because the project site is highly sensitive to the occurrence of unknown paleontological resources to 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. However, implementation of INSP Policies P-ENV-35 and P-ENV-36 would be required to ensure that the proposed project would not result in the destruction of a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of the aforementioned policies, which are standard requirements 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 2018 INSP EIR. As such, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None required.
EXHIBIT B
338
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.4-30
to 3.4-37
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.3-32
to 3.3-39
No No Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gasses?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.4-37
to 3.4-47
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.3-40
to 3.3-51
No No Yes
Discussion
a,b. 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 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 2020 INSP SEIR assessed the potential for the INSP to conflict with the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan and the 2012 City of Livermore CAP. As demonstrated therein, the 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that the INSP would not conflict with the 2012 City of Livermore CAP, AB 32 Scoping Plan, 2017 Scoping Plan, Senate Bill (SB) 375 and Plan Bay Area, or SB 32, and implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce INSP emissions below the applicable efficiency metric and render such emissions to be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction trajectory for 2050. Thus, the 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that with mitigation, implementation of the INSP would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and this impact would be less than significant.
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
EXHIBIT B
339
Plans.15 The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including 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).16
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. It should be noted that the 2022 CAP was adopted after preparation of the 2020 INSP SEIR. Therefore, the project’s consistency with the updated applicable mitigation strategies and actions is assessed in Table 4 below.
As shown in the table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable strategies and actions of the City’s CAP.
Table 4
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 using recycled water.
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
Municipal Code, Water Efficient Landscape, and
would be irrigated by an automatic irrigation
system using recycled water. 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
15 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. 16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
EXHIBIT B
340
Table 4
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
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. The proposed
residential units would be constructed to be allelectric, pursuant to Chapter 15.26 of the Livermore Municipal Code. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with Strategy
B-1.
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 City of Livermore has adopted Reach Code
amendments to the CBSC, which include EV
charging requirements for new development
projects within the City. For town-houses with
attached garaged, such as the townhome
component of the proposed project, the City’s
Reach Code requires that one parking space
provided per unit shall be a Level 2 EV Ready
space. If a second parking space is provided, the
space shall be provided with a Level 2 EV Ready
space. New multifamily dwellings and new
residential parking facilities, such as the affordable
apartment complex portion of the proposed project,
a total of 15 percent of dwelling units with parking
spaces shall be electric vehicle charging stations
(EVCS) with Level 2 Ready. A total of 85 percent
EXHIBIT B
341
Table 4
Project Consistency with the Livermore Climate Action Plan Strategies and Actions Consistency Discussion
of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be
provided with a Low Power 2 EV ready space.
The proposed project is anticipated to include 283
parking stalls within the attached garages.
Therefore, based on the City’s Reach Code
requirements, the townhome component of the
proposed project would be required to provide
Level 2 EV Ready spaces for all garage parking
spaces.
In addition, the multi-family affordable apartment
component of the proposed project would include
a total of 104 parking spaces. Therefore, based on
the City’s Reach Code requirements, the
affordable apartment component of the proposed
project would be required to provide 16 EVCS with
Level 2 EV Ready, and 88 parking stalls with Low
Power Level 2 EV Ready. The City would include a
condition of project approval to ensure compliance
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
would be required to comply with CALGreen
construction waste diversion standards during
construction of the proposed project. Therefore,
the proposed project would 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 the 2020 INSP SEIR. However, as discussed above, 2020 INSP SEIR Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would remain applicable to the proposed project.
Prior Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure from the 2020 INSP SEIR would apply to the proposed project:
MM-GHG-1: Operational GHG Emissions Reduction Measures. Implement the following GHG emissions reduction strategies to guide future development within the Planning Area:
EXHIBIT B
342
1. Require that a minimum of 20 percent of housing allowed under the proposed Project be affordable (below market-rate) housing.
2. Incorporate street and intersection traffic calming measures to a minimum of 25 percent of streets and intersections in the Planning Area. Street traffic calming features may include, but are not limited to, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes, horizontal shifts (lane centerline that curves or shifts), bollards, rumble strips, and woonerfs, Intersection traffic calming measures may include, but are not limited to, marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, channelization islands, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, and traffic circles or mini-circles.
3. Expand the existing local bus network in the Planning Area by a minimum of 25 percent by adding or modifying bus routes to increase accessibility to the Valley Link station at Isabel Avenue.
4. Require all new development to install indoor water efficient appliances and fixtures to achieve a minimum of 15 percent reduction in water usage and require applicants for new development to submit landscape and irrigation plans capable of achieving a minimum of 10 percent reduction in outdoor water usage. The percent reductions should be achieved over baseline water use conditions in the City at the time of development.
5. Require a minimum solid waste diversion rate of 85 percent to be achieved by 2040.
6. Require employers with more than 50 employees to provide a suite of travel demand reduction measures (TDM) capable of reducing single-vehicle trips by at least 20 percent compared to normal trip generation rates.
EXHIBIT B
343
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.8-17
to 3.8-18
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?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.8-18 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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.8-18
to 3.8-19
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?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.8-19 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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.8-20
to 3.8-22
No No No
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.8-22 No No No
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.8-23 No No No
Discussion
a. The 2018 INSP EIR determined that while implementation of the INSP could include land uses that would require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste and may increase exposure to risk of hazards, with implementation of federal and State regulations and the City of Livermore General Plan’s Public Safety Element, impacts would be less than significant.
Residential 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 proposed project 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
EXHIBIT B
344
or the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. b. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, individual projects under the INSP for which there are potential significant impacts related to hazards require a project-level environmental review. The City of Livermore General Plan requires environmental investigation as necessary to ensure that soils, groundwater, and buildings affected by hazardous material releases from prior land uses, and lead and asbestos potentially present in building materials, would not have the potential to affect the environment or the health and safety of future property owners or users.
The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials associated with upset or accident conditions related to the proposed construction activities and existing on-site conditions.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
However, the project contractor 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. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not 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.
Existing On-Site Hazardous Materials
A Phase I ESA was prepared for the proposed project by KCE Matrix for the purpose of identifying potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site (see Appendix E)17 A REC is defined by ASTM International as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
The Phase I ESA included a survey of the project site and a review of historical documentation, aerial photography, regulatory agency files, and environmental site radius reports. Historical sources reviewed as part of the Phase I ESA indicates that the project site was previously used for agriculture until at least 1982. The project site was previously developed with one residential structure, but has been vacant since at least 2020.
Pursuant to the Phase I ESA, features such as septic systems, above-ground storage tanks, underground storage tanks, asbestos containing materials, and lead based paint 17 KCE Matrix. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – Vacant Land Client Project Identification: Constitution Drive (APNs: 905-0015-008, 905-0015-026, 905-0015-027, 905-0015-028 & 905-0015-029) 2620 & 2768 Collier Canyon Road Livermore, California 94551. February 1, 2023.
EXHIBIT B
345
were not identified on the project site. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site was listed in the Facility Index System (FINDS), Hazardous Waste Generators, (RCRA NonGen/NLR), Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS), and Hazardous waste Information System (HAZNET) databases. However, violations for the project site were not found in the database searches, or the status is listed as inactive. Property listings within 500 feet of the project site were identified from several environmental databases; however, the Phase I ESA did not identify potential RECs related to properties in the vicinity of the project site.
As such, the Phase I ESA concluded that evidence or indication of RECs or conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances on, at, in, or to the project site has not been revealed, with the exception of historic agricultural uses. The Phase I ESA included recommendations to conduct subsurface environmental assessment work to determine whether or not the project site has been impacted by the potential usage of pesticides. Additionally, potential vapor encroachment conditions were recommended to be addressed as part of the subsurface assessment. The proposed project would be conditioned by the City of Livermore to adhere to all recommendations included within the Phase I ESA prior to building construction.
Any conditions associated with the historic agricultural use of the project site would be considered existing conditions. Impacts of the environment on a project (as opposed to impacts of a project on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, [2011] 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 [Ballona]).
The California Supreme Court has held that “CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. What CEQA does mandate… is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369, 392; see also Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure [2016] 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 197 [“identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes”], quoting Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 474). Therefore, for the purposes of the CEQA analysis, the relevant inquiry is not whether the proposed project’s future residents would be exposed to existing or post-construction environmental effects, but instead whether the proposed project would exacerbate the existing conditions. Any on-site soils identified as being impacted by the prior agricultural use of the site would be removed from the site and properly handled and disposed of consistent with existing State and local regulations, which would ensure any hazards due to past agricultural use of the site or vapor encroachment would not occur.
Three Zone 7 supply wells are located within the project site. One existing well, located within Parcel M in the southeastern corner of the project site, would remain and be protected within the existing 25-foot easement. As a condition of project approval, the project applicant would be required to field verify and report the wells to Zone 7, and either obtain an abandonment permit to properly abandon the well, or, if required by Zone 7, implement other measures identified by Zone 7, such as providing any necessary upgrades or adjustments to the well and/or well box elevation to match the final grade.
EXHIBIT B
346
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not 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. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. c. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, active and existing schools do not exist within 0.25-mile of the INSP area; however, a school overlay zone is proposed within the INSP area, and concluded that implementation of INSP goals and policies to minimize the exposure of new development in the INSP area to hazardous materials, impacts would be less than significant. For example, INSP Policy P-ENV-29 requires documentation of site investigation and any required cleanup to be submitted to City staff during the entitlement review process for individual development projects, and remediation and cleanup of any contaminated sites in the INSP area shall be in accordance with federal and State standards. Since the preparation of the 2018 INSP EIR, the Lily of the Valley Early Education and Preschool has opened, and is located approximately 0.15-mile from the project site. Nonetheless, with implementation of INSP goals and policies, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. d. As discussed in the 2018 INSP EIR, three sites within the INSP area are included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
However, all three cases are closed and are not located within the vicinity of the project site. 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.18 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, located approximately 0.5-mile southwest of the site. However, as discussed in the 2018 INSP EIR, all areas proposed for residential development in the INSP area are located within and consistent with Safety Zone 6 of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
The ALUCP does not include restrictions on residential development within Zone 6.19 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 2018 INSP EIR.
18 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed October 2024. 19 Alameda County Community Development Agency. Livermore Executive Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. August 2012.
EXHIBIT B
347
f. The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that INSP development could impair implementation of the Alameda County Operations Plan, the Alameda County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), or the Tri-Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan, but compliance with the City of Livermore General Plan and INSP policies would result in less-than-significant impacts related to impairment of implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Since the preparation of the 2018 INSP EIR, the City of Livermore adopted the City of Livermore Emergency Operations Plan in January 2018.20 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 Operations Plan, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes. In addition, since the preparation of the 2018 INSP EIR, the City has updated and adopted the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP),21 which guides hazard mitigation planning to protect the people and property of the Tri-Valley region from the effects of hazard events. 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 Emergency Operations Plan or LHMP. 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 2018 INSP EIR.
g. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, none of the INSP area is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), and the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that with implementation of existing State and local programs and regulations, as well as INSP policies, impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development anticipated by the INSP for the project site, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, while the project site is not located within or near a Very High FHSZ or State Responsibility Area, a High FHSZ is located to the east in close proximity to the project site.22 However, the proposed project would include the removal of existing on-site vegetation, which would reduce wildfire risks. Furthermore, residential development would be required to include fire sprinklers, and other fire suppression features, consistent with the CBSC and California Fire Code (CFC).
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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
20 City of Livermore. Emergency Operations Plan. January 2018. 21 City of Dublin, City of Livermore, City of Pleasanton, Dublin San Ramon Services District. Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. January 2024. 22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Alameda County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. September 3, 2006.
EXHIBIT B
348
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
349
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-19
to 3.9-23,
and pg.
3.9-28
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-24
to 3.9-25
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:
i. Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-25
to 3.9-26
No No No
ii. Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-25
to 3.9-26
No No No
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
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-26
to 3.9-28
No No No
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 2018 EIR
pg. 3.9-29 No No No
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.9-29
to 3.9-30
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 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’s potential to result in impacts related to water quality and concluded that future projects implemented under the INSP would be required to comply with NPDES requirements during construction and would be designed in accordance with the Phase I Municipal Separated Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit, Provision C.3.c, for post-construction stormwater management including low impact development (LID). Future specific projects would also be required to adhere to all INSP intended to avoid or minimize increases in stormwater flows and the associated degradation of water quality. As such, impacts related to water quality were determined to be less than significant.
EXHIBIT B
350
The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed project site. As such, impacts to water quality associated with the proposed project were previously considered within the 2018 INSP EIR. Nonetheless, the following discussion demonstrates how the proposed 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 during grounddisturbance. 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 proposed 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.
Pursuant to 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. 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 residential and open space uses would not involve operations typically associated with the generation or discharge of polluted water. Following completion of project buildout, disturbed areas of the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces or landscaping, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. All municipalities within Alameda County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit. 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 Plan 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,23 as well as all applicable City 23 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. February 8, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
351
stormwater requirements. In compliance with the C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance (see Figure 8).
The proposed stormwater design would comply with the City’s MRP using the guidelines provided in the Clean Water Program’s C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual. In order to manage and treat stormwater, the project site would be divided into various DMAs to collect and convey stormwater to the various on-site -LID treatment features, including LID measures located in Parcel M. Once stormwater has passed through the LID treatment measure, the stormwater would be conveyed to the City’s existing storm drain system in either Collier Canyon Road or Constitution Drive. Hydromodification measures would be implemented as required by the MRP utilizing the Alameda County Clean Water Program’s C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual.
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 2018 INSP EIR.
Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR. b,e. It should be noted that the 2020 INSP SEIR did not expressly address the INSP’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. However, the 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’s potential to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and concluded buildout of the INSP would result in a less-thansignificant impact due to implementation of hydromodification BMPs, LID measures, and design guidelines, as well as adequate water supply to accommodate buildout.
Water supplies in the northwest, northeast, and eastern portions of the City of Livermore, including the project site, are provided by Livermore Municipal Water. Pursuant to the City of Livermore 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City does not pump groundwater to meet any water demands of the municipal water service area and does not overly an adjudicated/unadjudicated basin. However, the City does retain a pumping quota of approximately 30 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin, an unadjudicated basin.
Bulletin 118 – Interim Update 2016 defines 517 groundwater basins and subbasins in California. Per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is required to prioritize the 517 groundwater basins and subbasins as either High, Medium, Low, or Very Low. Prioritization is based on the following considerations:
• The population overlying the basin or subbasin;
• The rate of current and projected growth of the population overlying the basin or subbasin;
• The number of public supply wells that draw from the basin or subbasin;
EXHIBIT B
352
• The total number of wells that draw from the basin or subbasin; • The irrigated acreage overlying the basin or subbasin; • The degree to which persons overlying the basin or subbasin rely on groundwater as their primary source of water;
• Any documented impacts on the groundwater within the basin or subbasin, including overdraft, subsidence, saline intrusion, and other water quality degradation; and
• Any other information determined to be relevant by the department, including adverse impacts on local habitat and local streamflows.
Each basin’s priority determines which provisions of California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring and SGMA apply. SGMA requires Medium and High priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies, develop groundwater sustainability plans, and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin is considered Medium Priority per the DWR24 and is addressed by the Zone 7 Groundwater Management Plan (2005 GMP).25 The DWR has not identified the Basin as either in overdraft or expected to be in overdraft.26 Pursuant to the 2020 UWMP, water supplies are projected to meet expected demand during five-year droughts beginning in 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and INSP land use designations of the project site, and would not be anticipated to result in increased demand than what was previously analyzed. In addition, 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. Therefore, the project would not result in substantially increased use of groundwater supplies beyond what has been anticipated for the site by the City and accounted for in the UWMP.
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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
c.i-iii. The 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’s potential to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, or result in polluted runoff. The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations, including NPDES requirements, Phase I MS4 Permit, Provision C.3.c, for post-construction stormwater management, as well as INSP policies and design guidelines.
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 24 Department of Water Resources. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization [Table A1]. January 2019. 25 Zone 7 Water Agency. Groundwater Management Plan for Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater Basin.
September 2005. 26 Zone 7 Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 6-7]. March 31, 2016.
EXHIBIT B
353
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 8, 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 bioretention areas located throughout the project site, as well as the raised bioretention planters. As shown in Figure 8, the bioretention 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 INSP area, and would result in similar development as what was anticipated in the 2018 INSP 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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
c.iv, d. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, the INSP area is not located within a tsunami inundation area, and large bodies of freshwater, such as reservoirs or lakes, are not located within the INSP area. Landslide susceptible land is not designated for residential uses under the INSP. Therefore, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that no impact related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur.
The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed project site. 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).27 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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
27 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06001C0333G. Effective August 2, 2009.
EXHIBIT B
354
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?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.1-16 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?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.1-17
to 3.1-25
No No No
Discussion
a. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, the INSP goals and policies, along with the land use diagram and development standards for each land use designation, were designed to promote compatibility with existing uses. The INSP does not allow for development of new neighborhoods distant or divided from established communities. As such, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded the INSP would not divide an established community, and a less-thansignificant 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 INSP area, and would be consistent with the type of residential uses anticipated for development on the site within the INSP.
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 2018 INSP EIR and would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR. b. The 2018 INSP EIR assessed the INSP’s potential to 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 specifically related to the project’s consistency with the City of Livermore General Plan and zoning ordinance.
According to the 2018 INSP EIR, because the INSP would update policies and land use designations for future development in the INPS area, the INSP is inconsistent with existing regulations by nature. The INSP’s regulatory framework would replace the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning standards regulating the development of properties in the INSP area. The INSP also includes amendments to General Plan policies and zoning regulations related to scenic views and airport compatibility. Amendments may also be needed to conform to State or federal law passed following adoption of the INSP, and to eliminate or modify policies that may become obsolete or unrealistic due to changed conditions. However, the General Plan and Development Code would be amended to accommodate development resulting from implementing the INSP. The INSP would help to fulfill existing General Plan goals, and the INSP does not conflict with other applicable agencies’ plans, policies, or regulations.
Thus, the impact was determined to be less than significant.
EXHIBIT B
355
The currently proposed project would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site. Furthermore, as the currently proposed project would be built within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP area, and would be consistent with the site’s INSP land use designations, the proposed park project would not conflict with the INSP. As discussed previously, the project applicant is requesting waivers and concessions to exceed the Performance Measure maximum building height.
With the exception of the requested waivers and concessions allowed under State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would otherwise meet the design requirements set forth for the site. Given that State law supersedes local ordinance, the proposed project’s use of State Density Bonus Law to waive the INSP Scenic Corridor Policy requirements related to building height and setback requirements does not result in a Specific Plan inconsistency. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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.
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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
356
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.15-1
to 3.15-2
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.15-1
to 3.15-2
No No No
Discussion
a,b. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, the INSP area does not have known mineral resources of regional or statewide value, or locally-important mineral resource recovery sites that are delineated on a land use plan, and the INSP would have no impact on mineral resources.
Currently, the site is vacant and undeveloped and is not used for mining of mineral resources. In addition, the proposed project would be implemented within the previously analyzed footprint of the 2018 INSP 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 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
357
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.6-20
to 3.6-34,
pgs. 3.6-38
to 3.6-39
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.4-18
to 3.4-33,
3.4-38 to
3.4-40
No No No
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.6-34
to 3.6-38
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.4-34
to 3.4-38
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.6-40
to 3.6-44
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.4-40
to 3.4-44
No No No
Discussion
a. The 2020 INSP SEIR analyzed the INSP’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. Temporary noise increases associated with construction of individual development projects within the INSP area were determined to be less than significant given that construction would be required to comply with the hourly restrictions for construction activities or receive approval from the City to deviate from the limitations, pursuant to Chapter 9.36 of the Livermore Municipal Code. With respect to operational noise associated with traffic, potentially significant traffic noise impacts to existing residences would be expected to occur along three roadway segments under the INSP (Portola east of Tranquility Circle, East Airway Boulevard east of Sutter Street and west of Via Mateo, and East Airway Boulevard east of Via Mateo and West/N of Portola Avenue). With the exception of the freeway soundwall along Portola Avenue, other intervening soundwalls or other features that would reduce the contribution of future projects under the INSP are not feasible along the aforementioned roadway segments.
Therefore, the 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that project-related traffic noise impacts along three roadway segments would be significant and unavoidable.
The following provides a discussion of noise associated with construction and operation of the proposed project.
EXHIBIT B
358
Construction Noise
The 2020 INSP SEIR’s analysis of potential noise impacts associated with buildout of the INSP accounted for noise generated during construction activities. Implementation of the proposed project would generate noise during construction by the use of construction equipment. 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. Construction-related 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 during the buildout period and occasionally and intermittently would exceed existing ambient noise levels substantially at adjacent land uses.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site would be the Lily of the Valley Early Elementary and Preschool. The nearest on-site construction would occur approximately 1,050 feet to the east of the common outdoor area associated with the preschool. In addition, multi-family residences are located north of the project site, across Portola Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet away from the project site. Noise levels experienced at the preschool and the nearest residences would likely be reduced by at least 29.5 dB, resulting in a maximum noise level exposure of 59.5 dB. In addition, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be separated from nearby sensitive receptors by existing development and vegetation, which would help to dissipate noise levels.
Because the proposed project would be subject to the required construction hours pursuant to Chapter 9.36 of the Livermore Municipal Code, the proposed project would not cause any additional construction noise that would exceed what was already evaluated in the 2020 INSP SEIR. Therefore, the 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 INSP.
Project Operational Noise
The operation of the proposed project would include typical residential noise such as landscape maintenance, HVAC systems, etc., which would be compatible with the adjacent existing commercial uses. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations.
The primary noise source associated with the operation of the proposed project would be traffic noise on local roadways. As part of the Transportation Assessment conducted for the proposed project, Fehr & Peers determined the proposed project would generate an increase of approximately 1,466 trips per day, including 96 AM peak hour trips and 112 PM peak hour trips.28
Based on Figure 3.4-2 of the 2020 INSP SEIR, the project site is located in an area with existing noise levels of 60 to 75 dBA CNEL. Pursuant to the Federl Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) criteria presented in Table 5, where existing traffic noise levels are between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. Generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 3.0 dB, which 28 Fehr & Peers. Cornerstone Church and Chu Property Residential Development – Transportation Assessment.
January 11, 2023.
EXHIBIT B
359
is considered to be the threshold for a significant increase pursuant to the FICON. The increase of approximately 1,466 trips per day associated with the proposed project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes along area roadways. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels related to vehicle traffic, and increased traffic noise generated from implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to transportation noise.
Table 5
FICON Noise Exposure Increases for Determining Level of Significance
Noise Exposure without Project Potential Significant Impact < 60 dB CNEL 5 dB or more
60-65 dB CNEL 3 dB or more
>65 dB CNEL 1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise.
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any additional operational noise that would exceed what was already anticipated in the 2020 INSP SEIR. Therefore, additional noise control mitigation measures would not be required for operational noise, 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 2020 INSP SEIR.
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 2020 INSP SEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the conclusions of the 2020 INSP SEIR.
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.
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.
EXHIBIT B
360
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 2020 INSP SEIR determined that future construction activities associated with buildout of the INSP could result in significant vibration impacts due to the use of pile drivers within the vicinity of sensitive receptors. The 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that even with implementation of INSP Policy P-ENV-6, which requires construction contractors to implement measures to help reduce vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Additional mitigation measures were not available.
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 sensitive receptors.
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
EXHIBIT B
361
distances. The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors.
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 1,000 feet or further from the nearest existing residential structure. Thus, pursuant to 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. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to INSP Policy P-ENV-6.
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 2020 INSP SEIR.
c. The 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that all proposed land uses under the INSP would be compatible with the Noise Compatibility Criteria included in the Livermore Municipal Airport ALUCP, and, therefore, impacts related to the exposure of people residing or working in the INSP area to excessive noise levels from aircraft at a public airport would be less than significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the land uses assumed for the project site within the INSP. 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 2020 INSP SEIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None required.
EXHIBIT B
362
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)?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.1-25 to
3.1-29
No No No
b. Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.1-29 to
3.1-32
No No No
Discussion
a. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, the INSP could result in the addition of approximately 9,800 new residents, which would represent a substantial share of planned growth in the City. However, the direct inducement of population growth through new housing and businesses would not be considered a significant impact because such level of development is within the overall General Plan capacity. In addition, the 2018 INSP EIR further noted that infrastructure and roadway improvements would serve infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels and to a lesser degree, redevelopment of existing uses. Additionally, the INSP focuses on policies for making streets more efficient for transit, bicycles, and walking rather than adding capacity for automobiles. As such, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that significant growth-inducing impacts would not occur.
The proposed project would include the development of a total of 253 residential units on a site long designated for such specific residential uses. The proposed project would include the development of 253 residential units. Using the U.S. Census Bureau average person per household value for the City of 2.82, the proposed project would generate approximately 714 additional residents (253 x 2.82 = 713.46). 29 The increase in population
associated with the proposed project is within the 9,800 new residents anticipated within the 2018 INSP EIR. The proposed project would include connection to existing City utility infrastructure and would not result in the need for expansion of services. Given the consistency of the proposed project with the INSP 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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
b. The 2018 INSP EIR determined that existing residential areas within the INSP area would retain a residential land use designation, consistent with existing densities, and the INSP would not result in the direct displacement of any housing or residents. While the INSP could result in displacement due to increased property values leading to rising housing costs in the INSP area, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that the INSP would not result in regional displacement. 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 29 U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Livermore, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/livermorecitycalifornia. Accessed October 2024.
EXHIBIT B
363
would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
364
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? 2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-12
to 3.11-17
No No No
b. Police protection? 2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-12
to 3.11-17
No No No
c. Schools? 2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-12
to 3.11-17
No No No
d. Parks? 2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-10
to 3.11-12
No No No
e. Other Public Facilities? 2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-12
to 3.11-17
No No No
Discussion
a. The 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the INSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection and concluded that a less-thansignificant impact would occur. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, the LivermorePleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) would provide fire protection services to the INSP area, and the existing nearby fire stations would provide sufficient coverage for the INSP area, and new facilities would be not required to serve new development resulting from implementation of the INSP.
The proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station #10, located at 330 Airway Boulevard, approximately 1.4 miles from the project site. The INSP identifies the 13-acre project site as Residential Village, Residential Center, and Open Space, which assumed the development of residential uses and open space. As such, demand associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the 2018 INSP 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.
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
EXHIBIT B
365
the 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
b. The City of Livermore Police Department (LPD) would provide police services to the INSP area. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, while development of the INSP would require a small police substation within the INSP area, impacts resulting from increased demand on police services and construction of the substation would be less than significant.
The City’s Police Department headquarters is located at 1197 South Livermore Avenue, approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. The INSP identifies the 13-acre project site as Residential Village, Residential Center, and Open Space, which assumed the development of residential uses and open space. As such, demand associated with the proposed project was previously anticipated within the 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR. c. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, based on development of approximately 3,890 housing units at buildout, implementation of the INSP would add a maximum of approximately 1,930 students to Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) enrollment.
When combined with the LVJUSD current student population of 13,331 students, the increase of 1,930 students would result in a total of 15,261 students, which would remain within the LVJUSD overall capacity of 15,500 students. The combination of Statutory Developer fees and INSP policies listed below that support school resources are expected to provide adequate capacity to meet demand for school facilities, and development of the INSP would result in a less-than-significant impact related to school facilities.
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 increase in students to the surrounding schools from the 253 proposed residential units 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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
d. The 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the INSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to increased demand on parks and determined that development of new recreational facilities within the INSP area would be subject to existing building and construction regulations that would ensure that construction activities have a minimal effect on the surrounding environment. Existing regulations, the General Plan, and INSP policies would ensure that development of the INSP would result in a lessthan-significant impact related to construction of park facilities.
EXHIBIT B
366
Pursuant to City of Livermore Municipal Code Section 12.60.020(D), the City of Livermore requires 5.5 acres of park facilities per 1,000 residents. As noted previously, buildout of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 714 new residents to the INSP area. As a result, approximately 3.927 acres of parkland would be required to achieve the desired parkland ratio (0.0055 acres of parkland per resident x 714 new residents = 3.927 acres of parkland).The proposed project would include the development of a 2.53 acre public park, which would serve the residents of the proposed project.
However, 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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
e. Other public facilities analyzed within the 2018 INSP EIR included public libraries.
According to the 2018 INSP EIR, an established industry standard for the amount of library space per capita of population does not exist. Because population growth associated with development of the INSP is accounted for under the remaining General Plan capacity, existing library facilities would accommodate the additional demand for library services.
As such, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would include the development of 253 residential units designated for such uses. The nearest Livermore Public Library to the project site is the Rincon Branch, located at 725 Rincon Avenue, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site, which could potentially be used by residents of the proposed project. While the proposed project’s increase to the City’s population could result in increased demand for services offered by the Rincon Branch, such demand would not exceed what was previously analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. Therefore, the proposed project could result in increased demand on existing library facilities or necessitate the construction or expansion of new facilities. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
367
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-8 to
3.11-10
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.11-10
to 3.11-12
No No No
Discussion
a,b. As discussed above, the 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the potential for buildout of the INSP to result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to increased demand on parks and determined that development of the INSP area could result in a new population at buildout of approximately 13,720 total residents, which would generate demand for approximately 40 acres of parkland. While the proposed 38.4-acre park and plaza space would not meet such parkland demand, the INSP area would include a total of approximately 236.1 acres of combined park, plaza, and passive and scenic open space at buildout. The INSP would include development of a total of 7.4 acres of neighborhood parks located throughout the INSP area. Additionally, new development within the INSP area would be required to dedicate park and recreational facilities or pay in-lieu fees that are used to build and maintain parks and recreational facilities. As such, the 2018 INSP EIR determined that all impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.
The proposed project would include the development of 2.53 acres of public park facilities and a public trail. 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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
368
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.2-32
to 3.2-63,
and 3.2-65
2020 SEIR
pgs. 3.2-31
to 3.2-50,
and 3.2-74
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)?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.2-64
2020 SEIR
pg. 3.2-73
No No No
d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.2-64
2020 SEIR
pg. 3.2-74
No No No
Discussion
a. The 2018 EIR and the 2020 INSP SEIR both performed a level of service (LOS) analysis for several roadway segments and intersections within the project vicinity and concluded that a significant and unavoidable impact would occur, with mitigation measures unavailable. 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 SB 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.”30 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 30 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.”
EXHIBIT B
369
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 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 INSP 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 Initial Study/15182 Checklist, prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, 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 Initial Study/15182 Checklist. Here, the most recent SEIR at issue was published in June 2020, before the VMT requirement took effect statewide.
The following sections provide a discussion regarding impacts bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
Transit Facilities
According to the 2020 INSP SEIR, development of the INSP would be transit-oriented and would create a diverse mix of land uses, resulting in a concentration of housing, jobs and shopping within walking and bicycle distance. Thus, the 2020 INSP SEIR determined that the INSP would have no impact related to transit facilities.
Public transit within Livermore is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVATA). The LAVATA provides the WHEELS service, which provides local public transit to the cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton, as well as the adjacent unincorporated areas of Alameda County. LAVATA provides a variety of transportation services, including fixed routes, direct access responsive transit (DART), prime time express bus routes, shuttle service, and Dial-A-Ride. The main transit center in the City is the Livermore Transit Center, located in Downtown Livermore. From the Transit Center, riders can connect to Dublin/Pleasanton BART, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Las Positas College, as well as local destinations.
Route 30R provides a loop service to destinations throughout the City of Dublin and the City of Livermore and stops near the project site on Collier Canyon Road. Route 30R
EXHIBIT B
370
operates Monday through Sunday from 4:43 AM to 11:16 PM. 31 The proposed project
does not include any features which could conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, including the Valley Link Project. A number of planned active transportation program (ATP) improvements are anticipated for the INSP area that would facilitate improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to the future Valley Link station. Existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide adequate connectivity for pedestrians to the transit stops. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with any planned ATP improvements in the vicinity. Therefore, current transit facilities are adequate and the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network. In addition, the currently proposed project is consistent with the scope of development anticipated by the INSP for the project site.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The 2020 INSP SEIR determined that implementation of the INSP would include new pedestrian and bicycle connections supporting and expanding upon the improvements identified in the Livermore Bikeways and Trails Master Plan, and concluded that INSP would have no impact related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
As shown on Figure 3.2-4 of the 2020 INSP SEIR, existing Class II bike lanes are located in the vicinity of the project site on both sides of Collier Canyon Road, North Canyons Parkway, and Constitution Drive. The proposed project would include a 0.61-acre linear park/trail and a new pedestrian and bicycle path. The new path would run adjacent to Collier Creek and would connect to the sidewalks on Collier Canyon Road and Constitution Drive. The aforementioned path was included as a planned Class I paved shared use path in the City of Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan.32 In addition, an existing sidewalk along Collier Canyon Road extends north and south with connection to several main roads in the area. As proposed, site access for all travel modes, including bicyclists, would be provided by Collier Canyon Road and the project driveways, which would adequately accommodate both vehicle and bicycle travel.
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 2020 INSP SEIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2020 INSP SEIR.
b. The 2020 INSP SEIR calculated that VMT would increase significantly with buildout of the INSP, but with the addition of the new service population, the per service population VMT would be reduced compared to existing conditions and to the 2040 No Project Condition.
As discussed above, because VMT analysis is not required for a 15182 Checklist to an EIR that was issued in draft form prior to July 1, 2020, additional traffic analysis is not required for this Initial Study/15182 Checklist. Although an analysis of VMT is not required, it should be noted that pursuant to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,33 projects located less than 0.5-mile from an existing major transit stop, and projects consisting of a high 31 Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. 30R Dublin-Livermore via Las Positas College. August 10, 2024. 32 City of Livermore. Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails Active Transportation Plan. June 11, 2018. 33 Governor’s Office and Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
December 2018.
EXHIBIT B
371
percentage of affordable housing, will have a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.
As discussed above, the project site is located within a transit priority area and would also include a total of 114 affordable units. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what were analyzed in the 2020 INSP SEIR.
c,d. The 2020 INSP SEIR analyzed the potential of the INSP to result in increased hazards due to design features or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access.
The 2020 INSP SEIR determined that new roadways, traffic signals, and intersections would be designed in accordance with City design standards that account for emergency access and would not result in increased hazards. As such, the 2020 INSP SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with the scope of development anticipated by the INSP for the project site. According to the Transportation Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix F),34 vehicular access to the project site would be provided by way of two new roadway connections to Collier Canyon Road. Both access points would have stop sign control on the driveway approaches, with the Collier Canyon Road approach uncontrolled. Both approaches to the northern project driveway access and the southbound approach to the south driveway would meet the Caltrans Highway Design Manual stopping and corner sight distance requirements for a 40-miles per hour (mph) design speed. The southern driveway would meet the 15-mph design speed stopping sight distance (100 feet) and corner sight distance (165 feet) looking to the south to observe vehicles traveling northbound on Collier Canyon Road. Thus, adequate sight distance would be provided at both proposed driveways.
In addition, the portion of Collier Canyon Road along the project site frontage currently serves low traffic volume generated by demand from local residences and businesses.
The proposed throat depths of the driveways would provide adequate internal queuing capacity for vehicles exiting the project site. Project driveways and internal roadways, except for townhouse driveways, are generally 26 feet in width. Townhouse driveways are generally 20 feet in width, which should provide sufficient emergency vehicle access throughout the project site.
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 2020 INSP SEIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2020 INSP SEIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
34 Fehr & Peers. Cornerstone Church and Chu Property Residential Development – Transportation Assessment Memorandum. January 11, 2023.
EXHIBIT B
372
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).
2018 EIR
pg. 3.13-19 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.
2018 EIR
pg. 3.13-19 No No No
Discussion
a,b. The NAHC and seven Native American tribes were contacted, pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, as part of preparation of the 2018 INSP EIR. A response was not received from the tribes regarding preparation of the 2018 INSP EIR. A records search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the INSP area. Therefore, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that no impact to tribal cultural resources would occur within the INSP area.
As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study/15182 Checklist, the 2018 INSP EIR assessed the potential for buildout of the INSP 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. The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that construction activities could potentially disturb or destroy significant buried archaeological resources and/or human remains. Nonetheless, the 2018 INSP EIR determined that with implementation of INSP Policies P-ENV-34 and P-ENV-37, all potential impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with what has been anticipated for the site in the INSP. As such, impacts related to tribal cultural resources
EXHIBIT B
373
associated with development of the project site with such uses were previously anticipated within the 2018 INSP EIR.
As discussed above, in compliance with INSP Policy P-ENV-34 and to ensure that any additional resources have not been discovered since the adoption of the 2018 INSP EIR, a records search of the CHRIS was performed by the NWIC for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area.35 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.36 The proposed project would also be subject to INSP Policy P-ENV-37, related to the inadvertent discovery of human remains. Specifically, if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, the developer and/or the City of Livermore Planning Department shall comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC.
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 2018 INSP EIR. As a result, the proposed project would remain consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
35 Tom Origer & Associates. Cultural Resources Study for the Cornerstone Townhomes Project Livermore, Alameda County, California. August 13, 2024. 36 Native American Heritage Commission. Cornerstone Townhomes Project, Alameda County. July 30, 2024.
EXHIBIT B
374
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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.10-
11 to 3.10-
12 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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.10-
12 to 3.10-
13 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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.10-
13 to 3.10-
15 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?
2018 EIR
pgs. 3.10-
13 to 3.10-
15 No No No
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
2018 EIR
pg. 3.10-15 No No No
Discussion
a. According to the 2018 INSP EIR, water infrastructure requirements needed to meet the demand of new development under the INSP. While the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) pump system would need to be upgraded, regardless of implementation of the INSP, the pump station improvements would be subject to State and local regulations regarding environmental review and the minimization of impacts from construction related activities such as grading, as well as policies in the General Plan that require that new utilities be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize potential environmental impacts. Additionally, deficiencies in the INSP area stormwater system that development of the INSP would exacerbate do not exist. Therefore, the INSP would have a less-than-significant impact related to the expansion of water, wastewater, or stormwater drainage facilities.
The proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses. With regard to project-specific utility needs, as part of the proposed project, a new eight-inch sewer line would connect to the City’s existing 15-inch sewer line in Collier Canyon Road. In addition, the proposed project would include a new eight-inch water line connection to the City’s existing 14-inch water line in Collier Canyon Road. The project would also include an on-site stormwater collection and treatment system connecting to the City’s existing 72-inch storm drain located within the project site. Electricity and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. The analysis of the 2018 INSP EIR included an assessment
EXHIBIT B
375
of the INSP’s utilities needs at buildout. Therefore, the utility needs associated with the proposed project were previously considered within the 2018 INSP EIR, and the conclusions of the 2018 INSP 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.
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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
b. As discussed throughout this Initial Study/15182 Checklist, the proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses on the project site. As such, water demand associated with the proposed project was previously considered within the 2018 INSP EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant, and the conclusions of the 2018 INSP 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 during five-year droughts beginning in 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045. 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.
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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
c. The 2018 INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’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 2018 INSP EIR, the WRP has the capacity to treat 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD) and is currently treating only six MGD, resulting in a difference of 2.5 MGD between capacity and current treatment level.
According to the Isabel Neighborhood Plan Sewer System Evaluation, additional development resulting from implementation of the INSP would require treatment of an additional 0.42 MGD of Average Dry Weather Flow. Therefore, the 2018 INSP EIR concluded that implementation of the INSP would not cause the WRP to exceed treatment requirements and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
As discussed throughout this Initial Study/15182 Checklist, the proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses. As such, wastewater generation associated with the proposed project was previously considered within the 2018 INSP EIR, and the conclusions of the 2018 INSP 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.
EXHIBIT B
376
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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP 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 CY of remaining capacity, or 20.6 percent of the total permitted capacity of the landfill (32,970,000 CY).37
The 2018 INSP EIR concluded that, given the City’s ability to meet disposal targets, as well as the remaining capacity in area landfills, the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal needs of the projected population increase under the INSP would not result in adverse impacts on landfill facilities, and impacts would be less-than-significant. The proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses on the project site. 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 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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
37 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Vasco Road Landfill, Application for Solid Waste Facility Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements. October 31, 2018.
EXHIBIT B
377
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?
N/A 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?
N/A 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?
N/A 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?
N/A 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 2018 INSP EIR. As such, the 2018 INSP EIR did not include an analysis specifically dedicated to wildfire; however, the INSP EIR analyzed the INSP’s potential impacts related to wildfires within Chapter 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. As noted therein while the City of Livermore has identified high wildfire severity zones in the INSP Planning Area, according to CAL FIRE maps of fire threat potential, none of the Planning Area constitutes a very high fire hazard. Additionally, development would be consistent with Livermore’s Fire Code and Chapter 9, Fire Protection Systems, of the California Building Code, which requires improvements such as fire sprinkler systems and fire alarms. Implementation of existing State and local programs and regulations, as well as INSP policies that address emergency access and fire-fighting facilities and services, development would result in a less-than-significant impact related to wildfire.
The proposed project’s area of impact would be within the footprint of the previously analyzed INSP. According to the CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program, while the project site is not located within a Very High FHSZ or State Responsibility Area, a High FHSZ is located to the east in close proximity to the project site.38 However, the proposed project would include the removal of existing on-site vegetation, which would reduce wildfire risks. Furthermore, residential development would be required to include fire sprinklers, and other fire suppression features, consistent with the CBSC and CFC. In 38 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Alameda County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. September 3, 2006.
EXHIBIT B
378
addition, the proposed project is consistent with the site’s current INSP land use and zoning designations.
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 2018 INSP EIR. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR.
Prior Mitigation Measures
None Required.
EXHIBIT B
379
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 Initial Study/15182 Checklist, the proposed project would be subject to INSP Mitigation Measures BIO-1, 2, 3, 7, and 9, which require avoidance of special-status species during construction. Additionally, while the project site could contain unidentified cultural or tribal cultural resources beneath the ground surface, compliance with INSP Policies P-ENV-34 and P-ENV-37 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 2018 INSP EIR and 2020 INSP SEIR , 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 2018 INSP EIR and 2020 INSP SEIR. The currently proposed project would be constructed within the footprint of the previously analyzed project site, which assumed the development of residential and open space uses. The project would include waivers and
EXHIBIT B
380
concessions to deviate from Performance Measures and development standards. With the exception of the requested waivers and concessions allowed under State Density Bonus Law, the proposed project would otherwise meet the design requirements ser forth for the project site. The development waivers and concessions would not be substantial such that the conclusions of the 2018 INSP EIR and 2020 INSP SEIR would change, as demonstrated throughout this Initial Study/15182 Checklist. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe significant impacts than were previously analyzed in the 2018 INSP EIR and 2020 INSP SEIR, and further analysis is not required in this Initial Study/15182 Checklist. c. As described in this Initial Study/15182 Checklist, 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 2018 INSP EIR and 2020 INSP SEIR. Therefore, further analysis is not required.
EXHIBIT B
381
APPENDIX A
AIR QUALITY AND GHG MODELING RESULTS
EXHIBIT B
382
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
1 / 105
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
383
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
2 / 105
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.6. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated
3.12. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
3.19. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
3.20. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
3.21. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
384
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
3 / 105
3.22. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.1.2. Mitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.3.2. Mitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.4.2. Mitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
385
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
4 / 105
4.5.2. Mitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.6.2. Mitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.7.2. Mitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.8.2. Mitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.9.2. Mitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
386
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
5 / 105
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.2.2. Mitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.3.2. Mitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
EXHIBIT B
387
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
6 / 105
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.9.2. Mitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.11.2. Mitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.12.2. Mitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
388
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
7 / 105
5.13.2. Mitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.14.2. Mitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.15.2. Mitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
389
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
8 / 105
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
8. User Changes to Default Data
EXHIBIT B
390
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
9 / 105
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Cornerstone Townhomes
Construction Start Date 7/1/2025
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency City of Livermore
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 33.2
Location 37.70311141186944, -121.80713351969986
County Alameda
City Livermore
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1677
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.28
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Condo/Townhouse 143 Dwelling Unit 4.42 351,373 176,418 — 403 —
EXHIBIT B
391
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
10 / 105
Apartments Mid
Rise
110 Dwelling Unit 1.66 106,600 0.00 — 310 —
City Park 4.95 Acre 4.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Enclosed Parking
Structure
87.0 Space 0.00 32,746 0.00 — — Private street and
public street
dedication
Parking Lot 37.0 Space 0.33 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
2.23 Acre 13.4 0.00 0.00 — — —
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-A Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Generic
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.5 11.1 51.4 37.8 0.18 1.57 19.8 21.2 1.47 10.1 11.4 — 24,718 24,718 1.22 2.95 40.5 25,669 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.4 11.1 12.4 22.0 0.03 0.41 2.17 2.59 0.38 0.52 0.90 — 5,233 5,233 0.18 0.23 0.25 5,306 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.10 7.86 8.39 15.2 0.02 0.26 1.52 1.78 0.24 0.36 0.60 — 3,710 3,710 0.13 0.16 2.69 3,763
EXHIBIT B
392
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
11 / 105
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.48 1.43 1.53 2.78 < 0.005 0.05 0.28 0.33 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 614 614 0.02 0.03 0.45 623
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 5.51 5.36 51.4 37.8 0.18 1.57 19.8 21.2 1.47 10.1 11.4 — 24,718 24,718 1.22 2.95 40.5 25,669 2026 11.5 11.1 12.2 23.1 0.03 0.41 2.17 2.59 0.38 0.52 0.90 — 5,377 5,377 0.17 0.22 9.57 5,457 2027 11.4 11.0 11.6 22.4 0.03 0.37 2.17 2.54 0.34 0.52 0.86 — 5,323 5,323 0.17 0.22 8.72 5,402 2028 11.3 11.0 11.1 22.0 0.03 0.33 2.17 2.50 0.30 0.52 0.82 — 5,269 5,269 0.17 0.16 7.90 5,327 2029 11.2 10.9 10.6 21.5 0.03 0.30 2.17 2.47 0.27 0.52 0.79 — 5,213 5,213 0.16 0.16 7.12 5,271 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 2026 11.4 11.1 12.4 22.0 0.03 0.41 2.17 2.59 0.38 0.52 0.90 — 5,233 5,233 0.18 0.23 0.25 5,306 2027 11.4 11.0 11.8 21.5 0.03 0.37 2.17 2.54 0.34 0.52 0.86 — 5,182 5,182 0.18 0.23 0.23 5,255 2028 11.3 10.9 11.2 21.1 0.03 0.33 2.17 2.50 0.30 0.52 0.82 — 5,130 5,130 0.18 0.22 0.20 5,201 2029 11.1 10.9 10.8 20.7 0.03 0.30 2.17 2.47 0.27 0.52 0.79 — 5,078 5,078 0.17 0.22 0.18 5,146 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.39 0.31 2.74 2.20 0.01 0.09 0.86 0.95 0.08 0.34 0.43 — 1,126 1,126 0.05 0.12 0.73 1,164 2026 3.01 2.91 3.50 6.16 0.01 0.12 0.60 0.72 0.11 0.14 0.25 — 1,486 1,486 0.05 0.06 1.17 1,508 2027 8.10 7.86 8.39 15.2 0.02 0.26 1.52 1.78 0.24 0.36 0.60 — 3,710 3,710 0.13 0.16 2.69 3,763 2028 8.07 7.84 8.03 15.0 0.02 0.23 1.52 1.76 0.22 0.36 0.58 — 3,683 3,683 0.12 0.15 2.44 3,735 2029 3.11 3.04 2.78 5.31 0.01 0.08 0.55 0.63 0.07 0.13 0.20 — 1,316 1,316 0.04 0.06 0.80 1,335
EXHIBIT B
393
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
12 / 105
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 0.06 0.50 0.40 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 186 186 0.01 0.02 0.12 193 2026 0.55 0.53 0.64 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 246 246 0.01 0.01 0.19 250 2027 1.48 1.43 1.53 2.78 < 0.005 0.05 0.28 0.33 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 614 614 0.02 0.03 0.45 623 2028 1.47 1.43 1.47 2.73 < 0.005 0.04 0.28 0.32 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 610 610 0.02 0.03 0.40 618 2029 0.57 0.56 0.51 0.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.04 — 218 218 0.01 0.01 0.13 221
2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 5.51 5.36 51.4 37.8 0.18 1.57 19.8 21.2 1.47 10.1 11.4 — 24,718 24,718 1.22 2.95 40.5 25,669 2026 11.5 11.1 12.2 23.1 0.03 0.41 2.17 2.59 0.38 0.52 0.90 — 5,377 5,377 0.17 0.22 9.57 5,457 2027 11.4 11.0 11.6 22.4 0.03 0.37 2.17 2.54 0.34 0.52 0.86 — 5,323 5,323 0.17 0.22 8.72 5,402 2028 11.3 11.0 11.1 22.0 0.03 0.33 2.17 2.50 0.30 0.52 0.82 — 5,269 5,269 0.17 0.16 7.90 5,327 2029 11.2 10.9 10.6 21.5 0.03 0.30 2.17 2.47 0.27 0.52 0.79 — 5,213 5,213 0.16 0.16 7.12 5,271 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 2026 11.4 11.1 12.4 22.0 0.03 0.41 2.17 2.59 0.38 0.52 0.90 — 5,233 5,233 0.18 0.23 0.25 5,306 2027 11.4 11.0 11.8 21.5 0.03 0.37 2.17 2.54 0.34 0.52 0.86 — 5,182 5,182 0.18 0.23 0.23 5,255 2028 11.3 10.9 11.2 21.1 0.03 0.33 2.17 2.50 0.30 0.52 0.82 — 5,130 5,130 0.18 0.22 0.20 5,201 2029 11.1 10.9 10.8 20.7 0.03 0.30 2.17 2.47 0.27 0.52 0.79 — 5,078 5,078 0.17 0.22 0.18 5,146 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.39 0.31 2.74 2.20 0.01 0.09 0.86 0.95 0.08 0.34 0.43 — 1,126 1,126 0.05 0.12 0.73 1,164 2026 3.01 2.91 3.50 6.16 0.01 0.12 0.60 0.72 0.11 0.14 0.25 — 1,486 1,486 0.05 0.06 1.17 1,508
EXHIBIT B
394
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
13 / 105
2027 8.10 7.86 8.39 15.2 0.02 0.26 1.52 1.78 0.24 0.36 0.60 — 3,710 3,710 0.13 0.16 2.69 3,763 2028 8.07 7.84 8.03 15.0 0.02 0.23 1.52 1.76 0.22 0.36 0.58 — 3,683 3,683 0.12 0.15 2.44 3,735 2029 3.11 3.04 2.78 5.31 0.01 0.08 0.55 0.63 0.07 0.13 0.20 — 1,316 1,316 0.04 0.06 0.80 1,335 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.07 0.06 0.50 0.40 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.06 0.08 — 186 186 0.01 0.02 0.12 193 2026 0.55 0.53 0.64 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.05 — 246 246 0.01 0.01 0.19 250 2027 1.48 1.43 1.53 2.78 < 0.005 0.05 0.28 0.33 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 614 614 0.02 0.03 0.45 623 2028 1.47 1.43 1.47 2.73 < 0.005 0.04 0.28 0.32 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 610 610 0.02 0.03 0.40 618 2029 0.57 0.56 0.51 0.97 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.04 — 218 218 0.01 0.01 0.13 221
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 18.3 17.8 4.98 52.8 0.11 0.17 9.55 9.72 0.17 2.42 2.59 118 12,530 12,648 12.5 0.49 29.6 13,136 Mit. 18.3 17.8 4.98 52.8 0.11 0.17 9.55 9.72 0.17 2.42 2.59 118 12,530 12,648 12.5 0.49 29.6 13,136 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — < 0.5%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16.6 16.1 5.41 35.3 0.10 0.16 9.55 9.71 0.16 2.42 2.58 118 11,916 12,034 12.5 0.53 3.96 12,509 Mit. 16.6 16.1 5.41 35.3 0.10 0.16 9.55 9.71 0.16 2.42 2.58 118 11,915 12,034 12.5 0.53 3.96 12,508 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — < 0.5%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 17.3 16.8 5.26 41.8 0.10 0.17 9.34 9.51 0.16 2.37 2.53 118 11,986 12,105 12.5 0.51 14.6 12,585
EXHIBIT B
395
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
14 / 105
Mit. 17.3 16.8 5.26 41.8 0.10 0.17 9.34 9.51 0.16 2.37 2.53 118 11,986 12,104 12.5 0.51 14.6 12,585 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — < 0.5%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.16 3.07 0.96 7.62 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.43 0.46 19.6 1,984 2,004 2.07 0.08 2.42 2,084 Mit. 3.16 3.07 0.96 7.62 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.43 0.46 19.6 1,984 2,004 2.07 0.08 2.42 2,084 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.93 4.56 3.53 36.4 0.10 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 10,175 10,175 0.38 0.43 26.3 10,339 Area 13.2 13.1 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 18.3 17.8 4.98 52.8 0.11 0.17 9.55 9.72 0.17 2.42 2.59 118 12,530 12,648 12.5 0.49 29.6 13,136 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.78 4.39 4.11 34.7 0.09 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 9,604 9,604 0.43 0.47 0.68 9,756 Area 11.7 11.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353
EXHIBIT B
396
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
15 / 105
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 16.6 16.1 5.41 35.3 0.10 0.16 9.55 9.71 0.16 2.42 2.58 118 11,916 12,034 12.5 0.53 3.96 12,509 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.71 4.33 3.88 33.4 0.09 0.06 9.34 9.40 0.06 2.37 2.43 — 9,653 9,653 0.41 0.45 11.3 9,810 Area 12.4 12.4 0.07 7.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.9 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 17.3 16.8 5.26 41.8 0.10 0.17 9.34 9.51 0.16 2.37 2.53 118 11,986 12,105 12.5 0.51 14.6 12,585 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.86 0.79 0.71 6.10 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,598 1,598 0.07 0.08 1.88 1,624 Area 2.27 2.26 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 376 376 0.04 < 0.005 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.85 6.50 9.35 0.29 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 0.00 16.7 1.67 0.00 — 58.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 0.54
Total 3.16 3.07 0.96 7.62 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.43 0.46 19.6 1,984 2,004 2.07 0.08 2.42 2,084
2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.93 4.56 3.53 36.4 0.10 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 10,175 10,175 0.38 0.43 26.3 10,339 Area 13.2 13.1 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283
EXHIBIT B
397
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
16 / 105
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 18.3 17.8 4.98 52.8 0.11 0.17 9.55 9.72 0.17 2.42 2.59 118 12,530 12,648 12.5 0.49 29.6 13,136 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.78 4.39 4.11 34.7 0.09 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 9,604 9,604 0.43 0.47 0.68 9,756 Area 11.7 11.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 16.6 16.1 5.41 35.3 0.10 0.16 9.55 9.71 0.16 2.42 2.58 118 11,915 12,034 12.5 0.53 3.96 12,508 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.71 4.33 3.88 33.4 0.09 0.06 9.34 9.40 0.06 2.37 2.43 — 9,653 9,653 0.41 0.45 11.3 9,810 Area 12.4 12.4 0.07 7.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.9 Energy 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 2,272 2,272 0.25 0.02 — 2,283 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Total 17.3 16.8 5.26 41.8 0.10 0.17 9.34 9.51 0.16 2.37 2.53 118 11,986 12,104 12.5 0.51 14.6 12,585 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.86 0.79 0.71 6.10 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,598 1,598 0.07 0.08 1.88 1,624 Area 2.27 2.26 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 376 376 0.04 < 0.005 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.85 6.50 9.35 0.29 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 0.00 16.7 1.67 0.00 — 58.5
EXHIBIT B
398
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
17 / 105
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 0.54
Total 3.16 3.07 0.96 7.62 0.02 0.03 1.71 1.74 0.03 0.43 0.46 19.6 1,984 2,004 2.07 0.08 2.42 2,084
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 0.43 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
399
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
18 / 105
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 < 0.005 0.01 0.60 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.94 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
400
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
19 / 105
3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 0.43 0.41 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 72.5 72.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 72.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
401
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
20 / 105
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 152 152 < 0.005 0.01 0.60 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.94 1.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.97 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
EXHIBIT B
402
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
21 / 105
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.34 9.34 — 3.67 3.67 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.16 0.13 1.22 1.16 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 271 271 0.01 < 0.005 — 272 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.38 0.38 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.22 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.9 44.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.1
EXHIBIT B
403
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
22 / 105
Dust — — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 < 0.005 0.01 0.69 176 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.37 0.41 21.7 8.69 0.12 0.34 4.74 5.08 0.34 1.30 1.64 — 17,946 17,946 0.95 2.89 39.8 18,872 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.65 6.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.02 0.92 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 738 738 0.04 0.12 0.71 775 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 122 122 0.01 0.02 0.12 128
3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
404
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
23 / 105
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.34 9.34 — 3.67 3.67 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.16 0.13 1.22 1.16 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 271 271 0.01 < 0.005 — 272 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.38 0.38 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.22 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.9 44.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
405
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
24 / 105
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 173 173 < 0.005 0.01 0.69 176 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.37 0.41 21.7 8.69 0.12 0.34 4.74 5.08 0.34 1.30 1.64 — 17,946 17,946 0.95 2.89 39.8 18,872 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.65 6.65 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.06 0.02 0.92 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.07 — 738 738 0.04 0.12 0.71 775 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.17 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 122 122 0.01 0.02 0.12 128
3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
406
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
25 / 105
Off-Roa 1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.82 3.70 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 685 685 0.03 0.01 — 687 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.51 0.68 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 114 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.65 0.59 0.42 7.09 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,664 1,664 0.03 0.06 6.12 1,690 Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.01 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 849 849 0.03 0.13 2.22 889
EXHIBIT B
407
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
26 / 105
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.63 0.56 0.55 6.23 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,544 1,544 0.04 0.07 0.16 1,565 Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.07 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 849 849 0.03 0.13 0.06 888 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.14 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 444 444 0.01 0.02 0.76 451 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 243 243 0.01 0.04 0.27 254 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 74.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 42.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.6. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
408
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
27 / 105
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.37 0.31 2.82 3.70 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 685 685 0.03 0.01 — 687 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.51 0.68 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 114 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.65 0.59 0.42 7.09 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,664 1,664 0.03 0.06 6.12 1,690 Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.01 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 849 849 0.03 0.13 2.22 889 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.63 0.56 0.55 6.23 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,544 1,544 0.04 0.07 0.16 1,565
EXHIBIT B
409
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
28 / 105
Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.07 0.46 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 849 849 0.03 0.13 0.06 888 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.18 0.16 0.14 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.11 0.11 — 444 444 0.01 0.02 0.76 451 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 243 243 0.01 0.04 0.27 254 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 74.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 42.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
EXHIBIT B
410
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
29 / 105
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.88 0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.16 0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.62 0.56 0.36 6.62 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,634 1,634 0.03 0.06 5.54 1,659 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.97 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 832 832 0.03 0.13 2.08 872 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.54 0.49 5.86 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,516 1,516 0.04 0.07 0.14 1,537 Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.03 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 833 833 0.03 0.13 0.05 871 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.38 0.31 4.06 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.26 0.26 — 1,090 1,090 0.02 0.05 1.71 1,106 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.72 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 594 594 0.02 0.09 0.64 622
EXHIBIT B
411
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
30 / 105
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 180 180 < 0.005 0.01 0.28 183 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 103 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.8. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.88 0.74 6.71 9.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718
EXHIBIT B
412
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
31 / 105
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.16 0.13 1.22 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.62 0.56 0.36 6.62 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,634 1,634 0.03 0.06 5.54 1,659 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.97 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 832 832 0.03 0.13 2.08 872 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.54 0.49 5.86 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,516 1,516 0.04 0.07 0.14 1,537 Vendor 0.06 0.03 1.03 0.44 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 833 833 0.03 0.13 0.05 871 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.38 0.31 4.06 0.00 0.00 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.26 0.26 — 1,090 1,090 0.02 0.05 1.71 1,106 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.72 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 594 594 0.02 0.09 0.64 622 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 180 180 < 0.005 0.01 0.28 183 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 103 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
413
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
32 / 105
3.9. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.85 0.71 6.39 9.26 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.13 1.17 1.69 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285
EXHIBIT B
414
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
33 / 105
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.55 0.36 6.24 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,605 1,605 0.03 0.01 4.97 1,614 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.94 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 812 812 0.03 0.12 1.93 850 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.59 0.53 0.43 5.50 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,489 1,489 0.03 0.07 0.13 1,510 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.99 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 813 813 0.03 0.12 0.05 849 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.37 0.30 3.82 0.00 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.27 0.27 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.05 1.54 1,089 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.69 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 582 582 0.02 0.09 0.60 609 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 178 178 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 180 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 101 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.10. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
415
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
34 / 105
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30— 0.30 0.28— 0.28— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
1.18 0.99 8.92 12.9 0.02 0.30— 0.30 0.28— 0.28— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,406 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.85 0.71 6.39 9.26 0.02 0.22— 0.22 0.20— 0.20— 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01— 1,723 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.13 1.17 1.69 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 284 284 0.01 < 0.005— 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
EXHIBIT B
416
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
35 / 105
Worker 0.61 0.55 0.36 6.24 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,605 1,605 0.03 0.01 4.97 1,614 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.94 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 812 812 0.03 0.12 1.93 850 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.59 0.53 0.43 5.50 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,489 1,489 0.03 0.07 0.13 1,510 Vendor 0.06 0.03 0.99 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.08 — 813 813 0.03 0.12 0.05 849 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.37 0.30 3.82 0.00 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.27 0.27 — 1,074 1,074 0.02 0.05 1.54 1,089 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.69 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 582 582 0.02 0.09 0.60 609 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 178 178 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 180 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 96.3 96.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 101 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Building Construction (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.15 0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
EXHIBIT B
417
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
36 / 105
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.15 0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.30 0.25 2.20 3.31 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 614 614 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 0.40 0.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.52 0.30 5.93 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,577 1,577 0.03 0.01 4.44 1,586 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 790 790 0.03 0.12 1.79 828 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
418
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
37 / 105
Worker 0.52 0.51 0.43 5.20 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,463 1,463 0.03 0.06 0.11 1,483 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.95 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 791 791 0.03 0.12 0.05 827 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.09 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 378 378 0.01 0.02 0.49 383 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 203 203 0.01 0.03 0.20 212 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 62.5 62.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 63.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.6 33.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 35.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.12. Building Construction (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.15 0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
419
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
38 / 105
Off-Roa 1.15 0.97 8.58 12.9 0.02 0.28 — 0.28 0.25 — 0.25 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.30 0.25 2.20 3.31 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 614 614 0.02 < 0.005 — 617 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.05 0.40 0.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 102 102 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 102 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.58 0.52 0.30 5.93 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,577 1,577 0.03 0.01 4.44 1,586 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 790 790 0.03 0.12 1.79 828 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.52 0.51 0.43 5.20 0.00 0.00 1.62 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.38 — 1,463 1,463 0.03 0.06 0.11 1,483 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.95 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 791 791 0.03 0.12 0.05 827 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
420
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
39 / 105
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.09 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.10 0.10 — 378 378 0.01 0.02 0.49 383 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 203 203 0.01 0.03 0.20 212 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 62.5 62.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 63.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.6 33.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 35.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 4.51 4.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.2
EXHIBIT B
421
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
40 / 105
Paving 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.14. Paving (2025) - Mitigated
EXHIBIT B
422
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
41 / 105
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 4.51 4.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.16 0.22 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 33.1 33.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.2 Paving 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
423
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
42 / 105
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.44 0.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
EXHIBIT B
424
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
43 / 105
Architect 9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.22 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.5 34.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.6 Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.37 2.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.71 5.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.73
EXHIBIT B
425
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
44 / 105
Architect 0.43 0.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
s
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.08 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 333 333 0.01 0.01 1.22 338 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.11 0.11 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 309 309 0.01 0.01 0.03 313 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 81.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
EXHIBIT B
426
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
45 / 105
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.22 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.5 34.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.6 Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.37 2.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
427
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
46 / 105
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.71 5.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.73 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.43 0.43 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.08 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 333 333 0.01 0.01 1.22 338 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.11 0.11 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 309 309 0.01 0.01 0.03 313 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 81.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.5
EXHIBIT B
428
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
47 / 105
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
429
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
48 / 105
Off-Roa
Equipment
0.10 0.08 0.59 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
6.56 6.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.11 332 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.10 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 303 303 0.01 0.01 0.03 307 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.01 0.34 221
EXHIBIT B
430
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
49 / 105
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.1 36.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
EXHIBIT B
431
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
50 / 105
Architect 9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
s
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.08 0.59 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
6.56 6.56 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 1.11 332 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
432
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
51 / 105
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.10 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 303 303 0.01 0.01 0.03 307 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 218 218 < 0.005 0.01 0.34 221 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.1 36.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 36.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.19. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
433
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
52 / 105
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.08 0.58 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Architect
ural
Coating
s
6.58 6.58 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
434
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
53 / 105
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 321 321 0.01 < 0.005 0.99 323 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 298 298 0.01 0.01 0.03 302 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 218 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 36.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.20. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
435
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
54 / 105
Off-Roa 0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 d
Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.08 0.58 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Architect
ural
Coating
s
6.58 6.58 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9
EXHIBIT B
436
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
55 / 105
Architect
Coatings
1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.07 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 321 321 0.01 < 0.005 0.99 323 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 298 298 0.01 0.01 0.03 302 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 215 215 < 0.005 0.01 0.31 218 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 35.5 35.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 36.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.21. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
437
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
56 / 105
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 37.9 37.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.0 Architect
ural
Coating
s
2.61 2.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
438
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
57 / 105
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.29 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.48 0.48 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.06 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 315 315 0.01 < 0.005 0.89 317 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.02 297 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.6 83.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 84.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
439
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
58 / 105
3.22. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.79 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
9.19 9.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.04 0.03 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 37.9 37.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.0
EXHIBIT B
440
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
59 / 105
Architect
Coatings
2.61 2.61 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.27 6.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.29 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.48 0.48 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.06 1.19 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 315 315 0.01 < 0.005 0.89 317 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 293 293 0.01 0.01 0.02 297 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.6 83.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 84.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
441
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
60 / 105
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 13.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
2.93 2.71 2.10 21.7 0.06 0.04 5.68 5.71 0.03 1.44 1.47 — 6,052 6,052 0.23 0.26 15.6 6,150 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
2.00 1.85 1.43 14.8 0.04 0.02 3.87 3.89 0.02 0.98 1.00 — 4,122 4,122 0.16 0.17 10.6 4,189 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.93 4.56 3.53 36.4 0.10 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 10,175 10,175 0.38 0.43 26.3 10,339
EXHIBIT B
442
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
61 / 105
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
2.84 2.61 2.45 20.7 0.06 0.04 5.68 5.71 0.03 1.44 1.47 — 5,713 5,713 0.26 0.28 0.41 5,803 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
1.94 1.78 1.67 14.1 0.04 0.02 3.87 3.89 0.02 0.98 1.00 — 3,891 3,891 0.18 0.19 0.28 3,953 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.78 4.39 4.11 34.7 0.09 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 9,604 9,604 0.43 0.47 0.68 9,756 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.51 0.47 0.42 3.63 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 951 951 0.04 0.04 1.12 966 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.35 0.32 0.29 2.47 0.01 < 0.005 0.69 0.70 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 648 648 0.03 0.03 0.76 658 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EXHIBIT B
443
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
62 / 105
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.86 0.79 0.71 6.10 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,598 1,598 0.07 0.08 1.88 1,624
4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
2.93 2.71 2.10 21.7 0.06 0.04 5.68 5.71 0.03 1.44 1.47 — 6,052 6,052 0.23 0.26 15.6 6,150 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
2.00 1.85 1.43 14.8 0.04 0.02 3.87 3.89 0.02 0.98 1.00 — 4,122 4,122 0.16 0.17 10.6 4,189 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.93 4.56 3.53 36.4 0.10 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 10,175 10,175 0.38 0.43 26.3 10,339 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
2.84 2.61 2.45 20.7 0.06 0.04 5.68 5.71 0.03 1.44 1.47 — 5,713 5,713 0.26 0.28 0.41 5,803
EXHIBIT B
444
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
63 / 105
Apartme
Mid Rise
1.94 1.78 1.67 14.1 0.04 0.02 3.87 3.89 0.02 0.98 1.00 — 3,891 3,891 0.18 0.19 0.28 3,953 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4.78 4.39 4.11 34.7 0.09 0.06 9.55 9.61 0.06 2.42 2.48 — 9,604 9,604 0.43 0.47 0.68 9,756 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.51 0.47 0.42 3.63 0.01 0.01 1.01 1.02 0.01 0.26 0.26 — 951 951 0.04 0.04 1.12 966 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.35 0.32 0.29 2.47 0.01 < 0.005 0.69 0.70 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 648 648 0.03 0.03 0.76 658 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.86 0.79 0.71 6.10 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.72 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,598 1,598 0.07 0.08 1.88 1,624
4.2. Energy
EXHIBIT B
445
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
64 / 105
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 342 342 0.06 0.01 — 345
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 210 210 0.03 < 0.005 — 212
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 64.1 64.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.10 7.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 622 622 0.10 0.01 — 629
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 342 342 0.06 0.01 — 345
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 210 210 0.03 < 0.005 — 212
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
EXHIBIT B
446
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
65 / 105
Enclose
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 64.1 64.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 64.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.10 7.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 622 622 0.10 0.01 — 629
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 56.6 56.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 57.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 34.7 34.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 35.1
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 103 103 0.02 < 0.005 — 104
4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
447
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
66 / 105
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
———————————— 341 341 0.06 0.01— 345
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 210 210 0.03< 0.005— 212
City
Park
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
———————————— 64.1 64.1 0.01 < 0.005— 64.7
Parking
Lot
———————————— 7.10 7.10 < 0.005 < 0.005— 7.17
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 622 622 0.10 0.01— 628
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
———————————— 341 341 0.06 0.01— 345
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————— 210 210 0.03< 0.005— 212
City
Park
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
———————————— 64.1 64.1 0.01 < 0.005— 64.7
EXHIBIT B
448
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
67 / 105
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.10 7.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 622 622 0.10 0.01 — 628
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — 56.5 56.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 57.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 34.7 34.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 35.1
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 103 103 0.02 < 0.005 — 104
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
449
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
68 / 105
Condo/T 0.12 0.06 1.06 0.45 0.01 0.09— 0.09 0.09— 0.09— 1,339 1,339 0.12 < 0.005— 1,343 ownhou
se
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10< 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 310 310 0.03 < 0.005— 311 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Enclose d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,650 1,650 0.15 < 0.005— 1,654 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.12 0.06 1.06 0.45 0.01 0.09— 0.09 0.09— 0.09— 1,339 1,339 0.12< 0.005 — 1,343
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10< 0.005 0.02
— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 310 310 0.03 < 0.005— 311
City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Enclose d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
EXHIBIT B
450
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
69 / 105
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,650 1,650 0.15 < 0.005 — 1,654 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 222 222 0.02 < 0.005 — 222 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 51.4 51.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.5 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 273 273 0.02 < 0.005 — 274
4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.12 0.06 1.06 0.45 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,339 1,339 0.12 < 0.005 — 1,343
EXHIBIT B
451
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
70 / 105
Apartme 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 310 310 0.03 < 0.005— 311 nts
City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Enclose d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,650 1,650 0.15 < 0.005— 1,654 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
0.12 0.06 1.06 0.45 0.01 0.09— 0.09 0.09— 0.09— 1,339 1,339 0.12< 0.005— 1,343 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10< 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 310 310 0.03 < 0.005— 311 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Enclose d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 Total 0.15 0.08 1.30 0.55 0.01 0.11— 0.11 0.11— 0.11— 1,650 1,650 0.15 < 0.005— 1,654 Annual——————————————————
EXHIBIT B
452
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
71 / 105
Condo/T 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 222 222 0.02 < 0.005 — 222 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 51.4 51.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.5 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 273 273 0.02 < 0.005 — 274
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
9.85 9.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.81 1.81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
453
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
72 / 105
Landsca 1.57 1.48 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 pe
Total 13.2 13.1 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
9.85 9.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.81 1.81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 11.7 11.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1.80 1.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.33 0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.13 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Total 2.27 2.26 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62
4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
454
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
73 / 105
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
9.85 9.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.81 1.81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
1.57 1.48 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 Total 13.2 13.1 0.15 15.8 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
9.85 9.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.81 1.81 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 11.7 11.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s
1.80 1.80 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
455
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
74 / 105
Architect 0.33 0.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.13 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62 Total 2.27 2.26 0.01 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.61 3.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.62
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 25.1 34.9 1.00 0.02 — 67.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 14.1 21.6 0.77 0.02 — 46.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114
EXHIBIT B
456
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
75 / 105
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
——————————— 9.73 25.1 34.9 1.00 0.02— 67.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 7.49 14.1 21.6 0.77 0.02— 46.4
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04— 114
Annual——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
——————————— 1.61 4.16 5.77 0.17< 0.005
— 11.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 1.24 2.34 3.58 0.13< 0.005
— 7.68
City
Park
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
EXHIBIT B
457
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
76 / 105
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.85 6.50 9.35 0.29 0.01 — 18.8
4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 25.1 34.9 1.00 0.02 — 67.1
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 14.1 21.6 0.77 0.02 — 46.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.73 25.1 34.9 1.00 0.02 — 67.1
EXHIBIT B
458
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
77 / 105
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.49 14.1 21.6 0.77 0.02 — 46.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2 39.3 56.5 1.77 0.04 — 114 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.61 4.16 5.77 0.17 < 0.005 — 11.1 Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.24 2.34 3.58 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.68 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.85 6.50 9.35 0.29 0.01 — 18.8
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
EXHIBIT B
459
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
78 / 105
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.0 0.00 57.0 5.69 0.00 — 199
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.8 0.00 43.8 4.38 0.00 — 153
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00 — 0.80
Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 57.0 0.00 57.0 5.69 0.00 — 199
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.8 0.00 43.8 4.38 0.00 — 153
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00 — 0.80
EXHIBIT B
460
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
79 / 105
Enclose
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.43 0.00 9.43 0.94 0.00 — 33.0
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.25 0.00 7.25 0.72 0.00 — 25.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.13 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 0.00 16.7 1.67 0.00 — 58.5
4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
461
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
80 / 105
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Condo/T
ownhou
se
——————————— 57.0 0.00 57.0 5.69 0.00— 199
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 43.8 0.00 43.8 4.38 0.00— 153
City
Park
——————————— 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00— 0.80
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00— 353
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
——————————— 57.0 0.00 57.0 5.69 0.00— 199
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
——————————— 43.8 0.00 43.8 4.38 0.00— 153
City
Park
——————————— 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00— 0.80
Enclose d
Parking
Structure
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
EXHIBIT B
462
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
81 / 105
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Lot
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 101 0.00 101 10.1 0.00 — 353 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.43 0.00 9.43 0.94 0.00 — 33.0
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.25 0.00 7.25 0.72 0.00 — 25.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.13 Enclose
d
Parking
Structure
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 16.7 0.00 16.7 1.67 0.00 — 58.5
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
463
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
82 / 105
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.52 2.52
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 0.76
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.52 2.52
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 0.76
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.28 3.28
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/T
ownhou
se
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.42 0.42
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.13
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 0.54
4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
464
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
83 / 105
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
———————————————— 2.52 2.52
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 0.76 0.76
City
Park
———————————————— 0.00 0.00
Total———————————————— 3.28 3.28
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
———————————————— 2.52 2.52
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 0.76 0.76
City
Park
———————————————— 0.00 0.00
Total———————————————— 3.28 3.28
Annual——————————————————
Condo/T
ownhou
se
———————————————— 0.42 0.42
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
———————————————— 0.13 0.13
City
Park
———————————————— 0.00 0.00
Total———————————————— 0.54 0.54
EXHIBIT B
465
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
84 / 105
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
466
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
85 / 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
467
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
86 / 105
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
468
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
87 / 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
469
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
88 / 105
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
470
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
89 / 105
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
EXHIBIT B
471
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
90 / 105
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT B
472
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
91 / 105
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/1/2025 7/7/2025 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 7/8/2025 7/28/2025 5.00 15.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/8/2026 5/11/2029 5.00 720 — Paving Paving 7/29/2025 8/7/2025 5.00 8.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/22/2026 5/25/2029 5.00 720 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
EXHIBIT B
473
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
92 / 105
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
EXHIBIT B
474
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
93 / 105
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 256 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
EXHIBIT B
475
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
94 / 105
Building Construction Worker 196 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 32.4 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 39.2 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 256 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
EXHIBIT B
476
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
95 / 105
Building Construction Worker 196 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 32.4 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 39.2 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 927,395 309,132 0.00 0.00 35,971
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)
EXHIBIT B
477
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
96 / 105
Site Preparation — — 7.50 0.00 —
Grading 19,500 11,200 45.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.8
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 100%
Parking Lot 0.33 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 13.4 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
478
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
97 / 105
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 937 937 937 341,877 8,046 8,046 8,046 2,936,632 Apartments Mid
Rise
638 638 638 232,870 5,480 5,480 5,480 2,000,289
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Condo/Townhouse 937 937 937 341,877 8,046 8,046 8,046 2,936,632 Apartments Mid
Rise
638 638 638 232,870 5,480 5,480 5,480 2,000,289
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
EXHIBIT B
479
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
98 / 105
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 143
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0
Apartments Mid Rise—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 110
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0
5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces0
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces 143
EXHIBIT B
480
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
99 / 105
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 110
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
927395.325 309,132 0.00 0.00 35,971
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
EXHIBIT B
481
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
100 / 105
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 611,252 204 0.0330 0.0040 4,179,116
Apartments Mid Rise 375,260 204 0.0330 0.0040 968,448
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 114,658 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 12,707 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 610,552 204 0.0330 0.0040 4,179,116
Apartments Mid Rise 375,260 204 0.0330 0.0040 968,448
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 114,658 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 12,707 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT B
482
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
101 / 105
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 5,078,052 2,449,748
Apartments Mid Rise 3,906,194 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 5,078,052 2,449,748
Apartments Mid Rise 3,906,194 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 106 —
Apartments Mid Rise 81.3 —
City Park 0.43 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
EXHIBIT B
483
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
102 / 105
5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 106 —
Apartments Mid Rise 81.3 —
City Park 0.43 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
EXHIBIT B
484
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
103 / 105
5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
EXHIBIT B
485
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
104 / 105
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
EXHIBIT B
486
Cornerstone Townhomes Custom Report, 10/8/2024
105 / 105
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Land use square footage and acreages based on site plan Construction: Construction Phases Construction timing based on air quality questionnaire provided by applicant team Operations: Vehicle Data Based on Table 1 of F&P Transportation Assessment Memo Operations: Hearths Based on applicant provided information.
EXHIBIT B
487
APPENDIX B
BRIEF BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT B
488
BRIEF BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
FOR THE COLLIER CANYON PARCELS
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
January 2020
Prepared by:
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Ms. Sadie McGarvey
88 North Hill Drive, Suite C
Brisbane, California 94005
On behalf of:
The Pacific Companies
Mr. Caleb Roope
430 East State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
EXHIBIT B
489
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
BRIEF BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
COLLIER CANYON PARCELS
Contents
Section 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 Section 2. Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................1 Section 3. Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Land Cover Types........................................................................................................................................................2
3.1.1 Ruderal...................................................................................................................................................................2
3.1.2 Riparian .................................................................................................................................................................2
3.1.3 Homestead............................................................................................................................................................3
3.1.4 Hardscape .............................................................................................................................................................3
3.2 Potential Waters of the U.S./State ........................................................................................................................3
3.2.1 Collier Canyon Creek........................................................................................................................................3
3.2.2 Seasonal Wetland...............................................................................................................................................3
3.3 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................................................4
3.4 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................................................4 Section 4. Biological Resource Constraints.................................................................................................................4
4.1 Special Status Species ................................................................................................................................................4
4.1.1 Plants .....................................................................................................................................................................5
4.1.2 Wildlife..................................................................................................................................................................5
4.4 Waters of the U.S./State............................................................................................................................................7
4.5 Other Constraints ........................................................................................................................................................7
4.5.1 Local, State, and Federal Plans .....................................................................................................................7
4.5.2 Existing Easements ........................................................................................................................................10 Section 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................10 Figures
Figure 1. Collier Canyon Parcels Site Map
Figure 2. Land Cover Types of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Figure 3. Collier Canyon Parcels Soil Map
Figure 4. Special-Status Species Occurrences Presumed Extant within 3 Miles of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
Tables
Table 1. Plants Observed within the Surveyed Portions of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
EXHIBIT B
490
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 1 November 2019
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (JMC) has been retained to provide a brief biological constraints analysis for the approximately 15.1-acre Collier Canyon Parcels site (comprised of 6 parcels) (herein referred to as the site) located in Livermore, Alameda County, California (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
905-15-8, -25, -26, -27, -28, and -29) (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of this report is to qualitatively identify potential occurrences and/or habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species on the site and to identify local, state, and/or federal biological constraints and ordinances applicable to the development of the site. This document is intended to represent a due-diligence evaluation only, and is not intended to be submitted to agencies.
SECTION 2. METHODOLOGY
A literature review was conducted for special-status species known to occur in the vicinity of the site.
In addition to a literature review, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California were queried for occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the site. A list of these special-status species has been compiled in tables (Table 2 and 3) which also discuss listing/ranking status, required habitat components, proximity of records to the site, and probability of occurrence onsite.
Additional research was conducted to identify local, state, and federal natural resource ordinances and laws that would be applicable to the development of the site; these ordinances and laws are discussed below. It should be noted however, that although some local entitlement requirements are addressed below (e.g. Livermore General Plan 2003-2025), this report does not provide a summary of all local entitlement requirements.
On November 22, 2019, JMC personnel Cameron Johnson and Sadie McGarvey conducted a site visit to evaluate biological resources present on the accessible portions of the site. At the time of the site visit, Mr. Johnson and Ms. McGarvey had received authorization to survey the 5 southern parcels. Site assessment included a reconnaissance level survey of the accessible portions of the site to characterize vegetation, topography, and current and historic uses of the site (as well as the surrounding properties), and to investigate potential presence of waters of the U.S./State. Observations made during site visits were used to determine the potential for the site to provide suitable habitat for special-status species (presence of habitat components necessary to support the species) and sensitive habitats.
Mr. Johnson and Ms. McGarvey performed an additional analysis of the inaccessible parcel (APN 905- 15-25) based on an assessment of publicly available aerial imagery (Google Earth), and in light of observations made from the accessible and adjacent parcels during the site visit. This assessment included an evaluation of the likelihood of presence of waters of the U.S./State, as well as the likelihood of presence of suitable habitat for special-status species and sensitive habitats.
EXHIBIT B
491
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 2 January 2020
SECTION 3. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The approximately 15.1-acre site is located in the northwestern corner of Livermore, Alameda County, California (the approximate center of the site is 37.703075°N, 121.807020°W). The site is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Collier Canyon Road and Constitution Drive. The site is bound to the south by Constitution Drive, to the east by Collier Canyon Road, to the west by Collier Canyon Creek, and to the north and northwest by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) and Cornerstone Church campuses. Overall, the site is relatively flat, occurring on a gentle southwestern-facing slope, with elevations ranging from approximately 435 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northern boundary to approximately 415 feet AMSL at the southwestern corner.
Onsite waters drain to Collier Canyon Creek which runs along the western site boundary. Collier Canyon Creek, in turn, flows into a concrete-lined canal (located at the southwestern corner of the site) that acts as the confluence for waters transported via two 72-inch culverts that run below-ground along the western portion of the site, as well as a 24-inch culvert that transports flows that run below-ground along the southern portion of the site. These combined waters then flow offsite through two box culverts that flow southerly underneath Constitution Drive and Interstate 680.
3.1 LAND COVER TYPES
The site is largely characterized by ruderal habitat, with the Collier Canyon Creek corridor traversing the northern portion of the site and flowing southerly along the western site boundary, a former homestead occurring in the northeastern corner of the site, and hardscape scattered throughout the site.
Figure 2 presents an overall land cover map for the site.
3.1.1 RUDERAL
A majority of the site is fairly disturbed due to its open access to the public via the “prayer walk” as well as its location immediately adjacent to the moderately trafficked Collier Canyon Road and Constitution Drive, as well as the heavily trafficked Interstate 580. Accordingly, this area is dominated by species that colonize and thrive in disturbed areas, collectively referred to as ruderal species. These species may be native or non-native, but are often thought of as “weedy” species. The ruderal areas are sparely vegetated, with existing vegetation dominated by non-native herbaceous species such as stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and prickly wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), with lesser dominants including slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa).
3.1.2 RIPARIAN
Collier Canyon Creek transects the northern portion of the site and defines the western boundary of the site. The vegetation community surrounding and reliant on this creek is referred to as “riparian”.
The riparian corridor is primarily dominated by a dense canopy cover comprised of willow (Salix lasiandra and S. lasiolepis), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and black walnut (Juglans hindsii). Breaks in the canopy are scattered along the length of the corridor, with understory plants such as beardless wildrye (Elymus triticoides), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) dominating the openings. The northern portion of the riparian
EXHIBIT B
492
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 3 January 2020
canopy is fenced on both sides. Any proposed modification of Collier Creek, including modification to the bed, banks, or riparian vegetation, would trigger permitting requirements by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife pursuant to CDFG codes.
3.1.3 FORMER HOMESTEAD
The northeastern portion of the site was formerly occupied by a homestead, which has been abandoned and all structures removed from the site. The term homestead is generally taken to mean a home and adjoining land, especially a farmhouse with outbuildings; often using the term homestead instead of “single-family home” implies an agricultural and/or rural aspect to the property. This portion of the site has evidence of former residential occupation as it is dominated by ornamental vegetation including pink jasmine (Jasminum polyanthum), ornamental sage (Artemisia sp.), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), palms (Phoenix canariensis), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and numerous tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) trees and offshoots, scattered among ruderal vegetation consistent with that observed throughout the majority of the site.
3.1.4 HARDSCAPE
A trail (“prayer walk”) winds through much of the southern portion of the site. The trail consists of an asphalt road (former alignment of Collier Canyon Road), a gravel road (occurring over the right-of-way for the undergrounded stormwater system along the western length of the site), and a minimally upkept dirt path. The trail is largely denuded, with scattered stinkwort growing through cracks in the hardscape. In addition, the concrete-lined canal that occurs at the southwestern corner of the site, the fenced off electrical enclosure that occurs at the southeastern corner of the site, and the areas immediately adjacent to the southern sidewalk and the northern parking lot are all comprised of hardscape (concrete and gravel), supporting little to no vegetation.
3.2 POTENTIAL WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE
3.2.1 COLLIER CANYON CREEK
Collier Canyon Creek runs east to west, traversing the northern portion of the site and then turning in a southerly direction, defining the western site boundary. This intermittent creek was completely dry along the north-south stretch, but had standing water in the upper reaches during the November 22, 2019 site visit. The incised creek channel ranges between 2 and 4-feet-wide at ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and 8 and 20-feet-wide at top of bank (TOB). In-channel vegetation is sparse, but occurs in dense clusters, with dominant species including Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) and bulrush (Bolboschoenus sp.). Collier Canyon Creek is a jurisdictional water of the U.S. and State. Any modification of Collier Creek, including placement of any fill materials, or modification of the bed, banks, or riparian vegetation, will trigger permitting requirements from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and the CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game codes.
3.2.2 SEASONAL WETLAND
A single potential seasonal wetland occurs in the southwestern portion of the site, immediately adjacent to the gravel portion of the trail. While an aerial signature of this potential feature cannot be observed in publicly available aerial photographs (Google Earth), the topographically low area exhibited 100%
EXHIBIT B
493
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 4 January 2020
cover of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), a facultative wetland plant that could indicate the presence of a jurisdictional seasonal wetland. Due to the ephemeral nature of seasonal wetlands, observation of wetland character is best completed during the winter and spring months. Surveys conducted out of season are limited, and more features may be observed when a formal wetland delineation is completed.
In order for wetlands to be jurisdictional, they must meet federal or state standards which typically includes a 3-parameter test (hydrology, soils, vegetation). This test should be applied to determine agency jurisdiction. If this feature is determined to be a regulated water of the U.S. or State, any subsequent fill of the feature would trigger permitting requirements from the Corps and the RWQCB.
3.3 SOILS
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, a single soil unit, or type, has been mapped within the site (NRCS 2019): Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes. Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes (Figure 3) is a well-drained soil derived from shale and siltstone alluvium, and is found in large bodies on hillsides. This clayey to silty-clay soil has a slow permeability and a high runoff class, resulting in a slight to moderate erosion hazard. Available water holding capacity is high; the water table generally occurs more than 6.5 feet below the surface. This soil type is not known to flood or pond.
Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes is on the California Hydric Soils List. The onsite soils exhibited deep fissures and cracking during the November 22, 2019 site visit.
3.4 HYDROLOGY
The site primarily derives its hydrology from direct precipitation, however, some portions of the site may occur within the active floodplain of Collier Canyon Creek.
SECTION 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS
4.1 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species include those considered to be rare by state and federal resource agencies (CDFWand the United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) and/or the scientific community (CNPS), and are accordingly legally protected via local, state, and/or federal law. For purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals protected pursuant to:
1. Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA),
2. State Endangered Species Act (CESA),
3. California Fish and Game Codes that protect nesting birds (Section 3503), raptors (Section 3503.5), and “fully protected species”(Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515)
4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
5. CNPS “rare” designation - all of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, and 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 of the CESA of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state
EXHIBIT B
494
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 5 January 2020
listing (CNPS Inventory, 6th Edition, 2001), and/or
6. CDFW "species of special concern"(SSC) designation.
For a brief description of all special-status wildlife known to occur in the vicinity of the site, see the attached Special-Status Plant/Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site tables (Tables 2 and 3). Figure 4 depicts the locations of the recorded occurrences for these species.
4.1.1 PLANTS
According to the CNDDB and the CNPS Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California, a total of 10 records for special-status plant species have been documented within three miles of the site and/or within the same U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic quadrangle (quad) as the site (Livermore quad): brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula), big-scale balsamroot(Balsamorhiza macrolepis), Congdon's tarplant(Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), palmatebracted bird's-beak (Chloropyron palmatum), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana), prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), long-styled sand-spurrey (Spergularia macrotheca), saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), and caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum).
Three of these species require specialized habitats that do not occur on the site such as mesic soils (prostrate vernal pool navarretia and saline clover) and meadows, seeps, marshes, and swamps (longstyled sand-spurrey). As such, these species are not expected to occur onsite. However, the onsite soils which are considered to be mildly alkaline provide potentially suitable habitat for the remaining seven species. In the absence of protocol-level rare plant surveys, the presence of special-status plants on the site cannot be ruled out. Rare plant surveys should be conducted during the appropriate season, for these seven species.
4.1.2 WILDLIFE
4.1.2.1 State and Federally Listed Wildlife
According to the CNDDB, a total of six special-status wildlife species have been documented within three miles of the site: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). Four of these species require specialized habitats that do not occur onsite including, vernal pools (vernal pool fairy shrimp), grasslands adjacent to seasonal wetlands/ponds that constitute aquatic breeding habitat (California tiger salamander), wetlands with tall emergent vegetation (tricolored blackbird), and upland habitats with adjacent permanent or nearly permanent water (western pond turtle).
There exists the potential for occurrence for two regionally known special-status species: burrowing owl (California Species of Special Concern) and California red-legged frog (federally threatened and California Species of Special Concern).
While no burrowing owls or evidence of their use of the site was observed during JMC’s November survey, the onsite grasslands support numerous ground squirrel burrows that could provide suitable nesting sites for this species. In the absence of preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls,
EXHIBIT B
495
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 6 January 2020
development-related impacts to this species cannot be ruled out. Site survey for burrowing owls is recommended prior to any site development. These surveys typically include two survey dates during the nesting season for this species (generally taken to mean February 1 through August 31), and a preconstruction survey to occur not more than 14 days prior to site construction. If preconstruction surveys find that the site is occupied by burrowing owls, then Avoidance Measures must be implemented pursuant to the CDFG protocol. These include the establishment of an avoidance and minimization plan, approval by the implementing agency (CEQA lead), and CDFW, and onsite biological monitoring. In some cases, projects may be approved for relocation of onsite burrowing owls. • California red-legged frogs have been documented within Collier Canyon Creek, just 0.2 mile upstream from the site, and as such, while the onsite grasslands are unlikely to be used by this species, the riparian corridor could support dispersing individuals (the onsite portion of the creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat - i.e., plunge pools, undercut banks, etc.). Site surveys (diurnal and nocturnal) for California red-legged frogs should be conducted within and adjacent to Collier Canyon Creek between January and September in the year permitting efforts are initiated. • A single potential wetland feature was observed during the site visit that should be evaluated to determine if it meets the 3-parameter test of a jurisdictional wetland. If it is determined to be a jurisdictional feature, it should be further evaluated to determine if it could represent habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (i.e. is it a vernal pool?).
If a federally listed species is observed onsite during additional site surveys, or impact to this species is assumed, take coverage from the USFWS should be obtained. Projects that do not result in take are not required to attain take coverage. Similarly, while the site is not located within designated critical habitat for any regionally known federally listed species, the site may provide potential habitat for federally listed species; if impacts to waters of the U.S. would be incurred as part of project-related activities, through the authorization process for impacts to the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction, it is likely that the Corps will request consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
4.1.2.2 Nesting Birds
The trees and grassland/herbaceous habitats that occur onsite provide suitable nesting habitat for many species of passerine (perching) birds and raptors (birds of prey), including white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) (CDFW fully protected species) and burrowing owl (State Species of Special Concern). No nests were observed onsite, however owing to the mobile nature of birds and the seasonality of their nesting cycle, and in light of the presence of abundant suitable nesting habitat onsite, these birds could nest onsite during future nesting seasons. In the absence of preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, development-related impacts to nesting birds cannot be ruled out. If project-related activities associated with the development of the site were to commence during the bird nesting season (generally taken to mean February 1 through August 31), preconstruction nesting bird surveys would be required.
4.1.2.3 Roosting Bats
Several species of special-status bats are known to occur in Alameda County. While there are no records for special-status bat species in the vicinity of the site, the riparian corridor provides suitable habitat for roosting bats, and as such, the City of Livermore and/or CDFW may request special Avoidance and Minimization Measures be implemented prior to vegetation removal. A survey should be conducted for
EXHIBIT B
496
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 7 January 2020
tree-roosting bats prior to trimming/tree removal within the riparian corridor.
4.4 WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE
The potential seasonal wetland and creek on the site are likely regulated by the state (Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) and federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps]) jurisdiction, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would likely have jurisdiction over the creek corridor and associated riparian canopy (to the dripline), pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. If seasonal wetlands and/or the creek are to be impacted by the development of the site, or stormwater is to be directed toward one or more of these features, permits may be required from one or all of these agencies. Determination of the limits of agency jurisdiction (Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne Act, and CDFW codes) is recommended.
4.5 OTHER CONSTRAINTS
4.5.1 LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL PLANS
4.5.1.1 City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025
The City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025 was adopted in 2004 as the City of Livermore’s (City) fundamental land use and development policy document, intended to guide development and conservation in the City through 2025.
Riparian Protection
Livermore stream corridors are protected pursuant to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Livermore General Plan 2003-2025 (2025 General Plan) (Objective OSC-1.2 [related policies P1- P13] and OSC-2.1 [related policies P1-5]). These protections include the establishment of setbacks (to be determined in coordination with resource agencies), enhancement and protection of native Creekside vegetation, preservation of riparian woodlands, and native landscaping requirements. It is of note that the 2025 General Plan does not provide allowances for development within a riparian corridor, with riparian corridor defined as “areas within 200 feet from the center of a permanent or intermittent stream.”
North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative
The North Livermore Urban Growth Boundary Initiative was enacted in 2002 to amend the City's General Plan by establishing land uses and regulations for property in North Livermore, including, but not limited to, placing restrictions on development affecting wetlands, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and on slopes. Relevant policies include requirements for retention or replacement of mature trees, and a 100-foot minimum setback for structures on either side of the center line of the creek.
4.5.1.2 East Alameda Conservation Strategy
The East Alameda County Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) was developed to streamline the environmental permitting process for infrastructure and development projects, within a framework focused on the protection, enhancement, and restoration of natural resources (including special-status species and sensitive habitats) in eastern Alameda County. The Conservation Strategy
EXHIBIT B
497
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 8 January 2020
acts as a guiding document for local projects, ensuring compliance with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, and assuring consistent and standardized mitigation requirements.
Conservation goals have been developed for focal species within the Conservation Strategy study area including the following plant and wildlife species: San Joaquin spearscale, big tarweed (Blepharizonia plumosa), Congdon’s tarplant, palmate‐bracted bird’s‐beak, Livermore Valley tarplant (Deinandra bacigalupii), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi and B. longiantenna, respectively), Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe), California red‐legged frog, California tiger salamander, foothill yellow‐legged frog (Rana boylii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, American badger (Taxidea taxus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). While many of these species are not known to occur in the immediate vicinity of the site, they are species of concern for eastern Alameda County.
As detailed in Section 4.1.1, the mildly alkaline soils and grasslands present on the project site are considered suitable habitat for many of the regionally known rare plants, including big tarweed, Livermore Valley tarplant, and recurved larkspur. While the onsite habitats are suitable for California red‐legged frog and burrowing owl (as detailed in Section 4.1.2), due to the site’s distance and isolation from regionally known occurrences and/or lack of suitable habitat, the remaining wildlife species identified as focal species by the Conservation Strategy are not expected to occur on the site (see Tables 2 and 3 for further detail).
The Conservation Strategy’s study area boundaries are based on political, ecological, and hydrologic factors. The study area encompasses the eastern half of Alameda County (approximately 271,485 acres). Because the study area is so large, and represents significant ecological diversity, it has been broken down into 18 discrete Conservation Zones (CZs) that encompass similar habitat types. By breaking the study area down into habitat types and areas, appropriate conservation goals can be established for each CZ. Per the Conservation Strategy, the project site is located within CZ4.
Conservation goals for CZ4 are as follows:
• Protection and management of alkali meadow and scald, valley sink scrub seasonal wetland, and perennial freshwater marsh in the Springtown Alkali Sink and surrounding watershed. • Protection of the palmate-bracted bird’s beak population. • Protection of Frick Lake and surrounding uplands for California tiger salamander. • Protection within vernal pool species recovery units. • Protection of vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp habitat. • Protection of designated critical habitat for vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp. • Surveys for vernal pool and longhorn fairy shrimp and protection of documented occurrences. • Protection of known occurrences of San Joaquin spearscale and surveys of other potential habitat.* • Protection of known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant and surveys of other potential habitat.* • Protection of designated critical habitat for California red-legged frog. • Protection and restoration of Cayetano Creek, Arroyo Los Positas, and Altamont Creek. • Protection of suitable habitat for Alameda whipsnake.
EXHIBIT B
498
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 9 January 2020
• Protection and enhancement of linkages across I-580 and Vasco Road for San Joaquin kit fox and American badger, including protection of lands on both sides of the roadways. * These conservation goals are of note as these species and/or habitats have been documented on or near the site.
It is of note that a Programmatic Biological Opinion has been issued for the area within the East Alameda Conservation Strategy’s study area (Programmatic Biological Opinion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Permitted Projects Utilizing the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy that May Affect Federally Listed Species in East Alameda County, California (Corps File Number 2011-00230S)). It is possible that the City of Livermore will request that conditions presented within the Programmatic Biological Opinion be adhered to as part of the City’s permitting process.
4.5.1.3 Livermore Tree Preservation Ordinance
The Livermore City Council has enacted the Livermore Tree Preservation Ordinance (Tree Ordinance) to establish basic standards for the preservation and protection of a healthy and sustainable urban forest through the implementation of policies, regulations, and standards for the protection of trees on any parcel of land within the City of Livermore. Pursuant to the Tree Ordinance, the removal trees that have been designated as a “Protected tree” requires a permit. Protected trees include single-trunked tree, a multi-trunked tree, or a stand of trees dependent upon each other for survival that meets any one or more of the following criteria:
1. Any tree located on private property occupied by single-family residential development that meets the following criteria:
a. Any tree with a circumference (CBH) of 60 inches or more; or b. Any California native tree having a circumference (CBH) of 24 inches or more;
2. Any tree located on private property occupied by commercial, industrial, institutional (i.e., religious, public agency, hospital, care facilities, etc.), mixed-use or multifamily residential (two or more units) development with a circumference (CBH) of 24 inches or more; or
3. Any tree located on an undeveloped or underdeveloped property, regardless of zoning district, use, or development status, for which new development is proposed, with a circumference (CBH) of 18 inches or more; or
4. Any tree located in an open space, riparian, or habitat area with a circumference (CBH) of 18 inches or more; or
5. Any tree approved as part of a site plan approval, or required as a condition of approval for a development project, zoning use permit, use permit or other site development review; or
6. Any tree designated by the City Council as determined to be an ancestral tree; and/or
7. Any tree listed on the City’s ancestral tree inventory; or
8. Any tree required to be planted as mitigation for unlawfully removed trees.
It is likely that many of the onsite trees would be designated as protected, and as such, if the development of the site requires the removal of any trees, a tree removal permit from the City of Livermore may be required. Such a permit may require mitigation for removal of native species and/or
EXHIBIT B
499
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 10 January 2020
mature trees.
4.5.2 EXISTING EASEMENTS
The western and southwestern portions of the site are overlaid by existing easements. The western extent of the site is overlaid by a RWQCB easement for conservation of water, wildlife habitat, open space and scenic qualities and incidental purposes. This easement extends to 100 feet from the centerline of Collier Canyon Creek and includes restrictions on development. The easement does, however, include provisions for construction of pedestrian, utility access paths and other improvements as well as low impact recreational uses, wetland construction, and maintenance and landscaping. The southwestern corner of the site is overlaid by an additional 6 easements for various utility and infrastructure requirements.
SECTION 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While a majority of the site is highly disturbed, the open, partially vegetated ruderal areas and the onsite portion of the fairly unimpacted Collier Canyon Creek may provide suitable habitat for multiple specialstatus plant and wildlife species. Protocol-level rare plant surveys are recommended, out of an abundance of caution, to ensure that special-status plants will not be negatively impacted by development of the site. Similarly, as the site provides suitable nesting habitat for many regionally known birds, if work is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), impacts to these species cannot be ruled out in the absence of nesting bird surveys. A preconstruction survey should be conducted of all suitable nesting habitat prior to the commencement of vegetation removal/ground disturbance, if such work is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (this includes the onsite burrows to ensure that they are not occupied by burrowing owls). In addition, a roosting bat survey should be conducted prior any tree trimming/removal within the riparian corridor.
A determination of jurisdiction pursuant to Clean Water Act, Porter Cologne Act, and CDFG codes (i.e., wetland delineation and riparian habitat mapping) is recommended. This effort would include onsite data collection as well as site mapping of jurisdictional limits. A single seasonal wetland (potential) and the intermittent Collier Canyon Creek occur onsite. In order to determine the extent and location of waters of the U.S./State, a jurisdictional determination mapping, reporting, and verification effort would be required for the site. If impacts would be incurred to the onsite seasonal wetlands or creeks as a result of project implementation, authorization from the Corps and RWQCB pursuant to section 404 and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and/or the CDFW pursuant to section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code would be required.
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC recommends the following survey efforts prior to any site disturbance:
• Jurisdictional determination for regulated waters of the U.S and State (including CDFW codes) • Survey for Western burrowing owl
EXHIBIT B
500
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis 11 January 2020
• Survey for California red-legged frog
• Survey for roosting bat species
• Survey for nesting birds, including raptors and passerines • Survey for rare plants
• Tree survey pursuant to City of Livermore Ordinance
As the site occurs in close proximity to records for regionally known federally listed plant and wildlife species, and provides potentially suitable habitat for these species, development of the site will require and effects determination for these listed species. If impacts are incurred to federal jurisdiction (i.e., wetlands or the bed of the creek) the Corps would likely require consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act prior to issuance of a Clean Water Act authorization for placement of fill within waters of the U.S. Purchase of mitigation credits at a USFWS- and CDFWapproved mitigation bank (or other agency-approved mitigation) may be required.
EXHIBIT B
501
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Figures
Figure 1. Collier Canyon Parcels Site Map
Figure 2. Land Cover Types of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Figure 3. Collier Canyon Parcels Soil Map
Figure 4. Special-Status Species Occurrences Presumed Extant within 3 Miles of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
EXHIBIT B
502
EXHIBIT B
503
J O H N S O N M A R I G O T C O N S U L T I N G, L L C
FIGURE #2
COLLIER CANYON PARCELS
EXHIBIT B
504
J O H N S O N M A R I G O T C O N S U L T I N G, L L C
FIGURE #3
COLLIER CANYON PARCELS
EXHIBIT B
505
J O H N S O N M A R I G O T C O N S U L T I N G, L L C
FIGURE #4
COLLIER CANYON PARCELS
EXHIBIT B
506
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Tables
Table 1. Plants Observed within the Surveyed Portions of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
EXHIBIT B
507
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Table 1. Plants Observed within the Surveyed Portions of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site
Scientific Name Common Name
Aesculus californica Buckeye
Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven
Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed
Artemisia sp. Ornamental sage
Avena barbata Slender wild oat
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush
Bromus catharticus Rescue grass
Bolboschoenus sp. Bulrush
Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle
Convolvulus arvensis Orchard morningglory
Croton setiger Turkey-mullein
Cynara cardunculus Cardoon
Distichlis spicata Salt grass
Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort
Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye
Epilobium ciliatum Fringed willowherb
Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum
Euphorbia maculata Spotted spurge
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
Fraxinus sp. Ash
Heliotropium europaeum European heliotrope
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue
Hirschfeldia incana Short podded mustard
Hordeum marinum Seaside barley
Jasminum polyanthum Pink jasmine
Juglans hindsii Northern california black walnut
Lactuca serriola Prickly wild lettuce
Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed
Malvella leprosa Alkali mallow
Phoenix canariensis Canary island date palm
Pinus radiata Monterey Pine
Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree
Silybum marianum Milk thistle
Tragopogon porrifolius Purple salsify
Trifolium hirtum Rose clover
EXHIBIT B
508
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Brittlescale Atriplex depressa CNPS Rank 1B.2
Alkaline clays in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playas, valley
and foothill grassland, and vernal
pools
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.8 miles east
of the site (CNDDB Occurrence No.
65).
Low. No species in the Atriplex genus were observed onsite during the November 2019 survey. However, the onsite soils are considered mildly alkaline and could potentially support this species.
Lesser Saltscale Atriplex minuscula CNPS Rank 1B.1
Alkaline, sandy soils in chenopod
scrub, playas, and valley and
foothill grassland
CNPS 1 Quad Search
Low. No species in the Atriplex genus were observed onsite during the November 2019 survey. However, the onsite soils are considered mildly alkaline and could potentially support this species.
Big-scale Balsamroot Balsamorhiza macrolepis CNPS Rank: 1B.2 Sometimes serpentine soils in
chaparral, cismontane woodland,
and valley and foothill grassland
CNPS 1 Quad Search
Low. The onsite grassland vegetation community is comprised of species that thrive in disturbed environments. Regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Big Tarplant Blepharizonia plumosa CNPS Rank 1B.1 Usually clay soils in valley and foothill grassland
Focal Species within the East
Alameda County Conservation
Strategy
Low. The onsite grassland vegetation community is comprised of species that thrive in disturbed environemnts. Regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Congdon's Tarplant Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii CNPS Rank 1B.1 Alkaline soils in valley and foothill grassland The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.8 miles west
of the site (CNDDB Occurrence No.
11).
Low. No tarplant species were observed onsite during the November 2019 survey. However, the onsite soils are
considered mildly alkaline and could potentially support this species.
Palmate-bracted Bird'sbeak Chloropyron palmatum
Federally Endangered
California Endangered
CNPS Rank 1B.1
Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub
and valley and foothill grassland CNPS 1 Quad Search
Low. The onsite grassland vegetation community is comprised of species that thrive in disturbed environemnts. Regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Livermore Valley tarplant Deinandra bacigalupii California Endangered CNPS Rank 1B.1 Alkaline meadows and seeps
Focal Species within the East
Alameda County Conservation
Strategy
Low. The onsite grassland vegetation community is comprised of species that thrive in disturbed environments. Regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Recurved Larkspur Delphinium recurvatum CNPS Rank: 1B.2 Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub,
cismontane woodland, and valley
and foothill grassland
Focal Species within the East
Alameda County Conservation
Strategy
Low. The onsite grassland vegetation community is comprised of species that thrive in disturbed environments. Regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
San Joaquin Spearscale Extriplex joaquinana CNPS Rank: 1B.2 Alkaline soils in chenopod scrub,
meadows and seeps, playas, and
valley and foothill grassland
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.6 miles
northwest of the site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 82).
Low. No species in the Extriplex genus were observed onsite during the November 2019 survey. However, the onsite soils are considered mildly alkaline and could potentially support this species.
EXHIBIT B
509
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Prostrate Vernal Pool
Navarretia Navarretia prostrata CNPS Rank 1B.1
Mesic soils in coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 2.0 miles west of
the site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 61).
None. The onsite grassland and riparian habitats do not provide suitable habitat for this species.
Long-styled Sand-spurrey Spergularia macrotheca CNPS Rank 1B.2 Alkaline soils in meadows
and seeps and marshes and
swamps
CNPS 1 Quad Search None. The onsite grassland and riparian habitats do not provide suitable habitat for this species.
Saline Clover Trifolium hydrophilum CNPS Rank 1B.2
Mesic soils in marshes and
swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
CNPS 1 Quad Search None. The onsite grassland and riparian habitats do not provide suitable habitat for this species.
Caper-fruited
Tropidocarpum Tropidocarpum capparideum CNPS Rank 1B.1 Alkaline hills within valley and foothill grassland An historic record (1897) for this species
has been documented in the vicinity of the
site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 11). Exact
location is unknown.
Low. The onsite grasslands do not occur hillside, regardless, the site does provide potentially suitable habitat for this species.
EXHIBIT B
510
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
Table 3. Special-Status Wildlife Species Presumed Extant in the Vicinity of the Collier Canyon Parcels Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Type/Components Occurrence Information Probability of Occurring on the Project Site Alameda Whipsnake Masticophis lateralis ssp.
euryxanthus
Federally Threatened
State Threatened
Sage scrub, chaparral and open
woodlands, as well as herbaceous
grasslands
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The site is isolated from suitable habitat and is not sufficiently close to core scrub/chaparral habitat to be considered potentially suitable habitat.
American Badger Taxidea taxus
California Species of
Special Concern
Drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats,
with friable soils
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The dense clay soils do not provide suitable
burrowing habitat for this species.
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia California Species of
Special Concern
Open, dry grassland and desert
habitats, and in grass, forb and
open shrub habitats
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.1 miles
northeast of the site (CNDDB Occurrence
No. 2017).
Moderate. While this species was not observed onsite,
the site provides suitable habitat for this species,
including abundant ground squirrel burrows.
California Red-Legged Frog Rana draytonii
Federally Threatened
California Species of
Special Concern
Grassland and riparian habitats
adjacent to creeks/streams with
plunge pools or ponds
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 0.2 mile northeast
of the site (CNDDB Occurrence No. 281).
Moderate. Records for this species occur within Collier Canyon Creek, upstream from the site. The onsite portion of Collier Canyon Creek could be used by this species.
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense Federally Threatened California Threatened
Grasslands adjacent to seasonal
wetlands and ponds (aquatic
breeding habitat)
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 0.5 mile
northwest of the site (CNDDB Occurrence
No. 1166).
None. The site is separated fom extant records for this species by significant barriers to dispersal.
Callippe Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria c. callippe Federally Endangered Hilly grasslands with host plant Viola pedunculata
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species due to the location of the site in the flatlands of Livermore, the disturbed nature of the onsite grassland, and the lack of host plants.
Steelhead
- Central California Coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss Federally Threatened Permanent coastal streams,
and/or lagoons below natural and
manmade barriers from the
Russian River (Sonoma Co.) south
to Aptos Creek (Santa Cruz Co.),
and the drainages of San Francisco
Bay eastward to the Napa River
(inclusive), excluding the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Basin
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. Steelhead are not known to occur in Collier
Canyon Creek.
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii California Species of Concern
In or near rocky streams in a
variety of habitats
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species (no rocky streams on or near the site).
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos California Fully
Protected
Nests on secluded cliffs with
overhanging ledges and in large
trees in open areas within rolling
foothills, mountain areas, sagejuniper flats, and desert Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The site is surrounded by development and occurs
within an area considered too urbanized to support this species.
EXHIBIT B
511
Collier Canyon Parcels Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Brief Biological Constraints Analysis January 2020
San Joaquin Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Federally Endangered California Threatened
Regionally known to occur in
hillside grazed grassland, pasture,
annual grassland and alkali sink
scrub
Focal Species within the East Alameda
County Conservation Strategy
None. The site is isolated from suitable habitat known to support this species and the dense clay soils onsite do not provide suitable burrowing habitat for this species.
Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni California Threatened
Roosts/nests in large trees
within/adjacent to grasslands or
suitable grain or alfalfa fields, or
livestock pastures (wherein they
forage)
This species is known to occur
regionally.
Low. The site is surrounded by development and does not provide sufficient foraging habitat for this species.
Regardless, the onsite trees provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for this species.
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor California Species of Special Concern
Nests in emergent wetland with
tall, dense cattails or tules, or
thickets of willow, blackberry, or
tall herbs.
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.0 mile
southwest of the site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 254).
None. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species (i.e., no emergent wetland).
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Federally Threatened Vernal pools, seasonal wetlands,
and stagnant ditches that fill with
water during fall/winter rains and
dry up in spring/summer
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.6 mile
northeast of the site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 254).
Low. A single potential wetland occurs onsite - this
feature should be evaluated for jurisdiction and a
determination regarding habitat potential for this species should occur.
White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus California Fully
Protected
Forages in grasslands, nests in
proximally located trees with
dense canopy
This species is known to occur
regionally.
Low. The site is surrounded by development and does not provide sufficient foraging habitat for this species.
Regardless, the onsite trees provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for this species.
Western Pond Turtle Emys marmorata California Species of Special Concern
A variety of habitats adjacent to
permanent or nearly permanent
water.
The closest record for this species is
located approximately 1.0 mile
norththwest of the site (CNDDB
Occurrence No. 254).
None. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species.
EXHIBIT B
512
APPENDIX C
AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
EXHIBIT B
513
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Collier Canyon Parcels Project
Alameda County, California
March 2022
I approve this document to be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on our behalf, for verification.
______________________________________ ______________________ Signature Date
Prepared for:
The Pacific Companies
EXHIBIT B
514
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Collier Canyon Parcels Project
Alameda County, California
March 2022
Prepared by:
Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC
Sadie McGarvey
433 Visitacion Ave
Brisbane, California 94005
On behalf of:
The Pacific Companies
Tim Saunders
430 East State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
EXHIBIT B
515
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Aquatic Resource Delineation Report
Collier Canyon Parcels Project
Contents
SECTION 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Study Area Location .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Watershed.................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Climate ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Surrounding Land Use.......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Topography............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Soils............................................................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2. Regulatory Setting...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Waters of the United States................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States.................................................. 6
2.1.2 Wetland Determinations ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Waters of the State .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 CDFW Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................... 11 SECTION 3. Methods .......................................................................................................................12 SECTION 4. Results...........................................................................................................................13
4.1 Intermittent Stream ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 In-Channel Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Riparian Zones ...................................................................................................................................... 14 SECTION 5. Conclusion...................................................................................................................15 SECTION 6. References ..................................................................................................................16
EXHIBIT B
516
Tables
Table 1. Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species Table 2. Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Zones
Appendicies
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map
Figure 4. Delineation Map
Figure 5. Riparian MapAppendix B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C. Representative Site Photographs
EXHIBIT B
517
SECTION 1. Introduction
This report describes the extent and location of potential waters of the United States (U.S.) subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1344), potential waters of the State subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) within the Collier Canyon Parcels Project Study Area (Study Area). This investigation of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State follows the methods described in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008a); the Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987), supplemented with guidance as directed by the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008b); and the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). The waters of the U.S. boundaries depicted in this report represent a calculated estimation of the jurisdictional area within the site and are subject to modification following the USACE review process. All provided maps are consistent with the most recent Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program.
1.1 Study Area Location
The approximately 15.1-acre site is located in the northwestern corner of Livermore, Alameda County, California (the approximate center of the site is 37.703075°N, 121.807020°W). The Study Area contains multiple parcels including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 905-15-8, -25, -26, -27, -28, and -29 (Appendix A: Figures 1 and 2). The Study Area is within the Livermore U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle.
The Study Area is located immediately northwest of the intersection of Collier Canyon Road and Constitution Drive. The Study Area is bound to the south by Constitution Drive, to the east by Collier Canyon Road, to the west by Collier Canyon Creek, and to the north and northwest by Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) and Cornerstone Church campuses.
1.2 Watershed
The Study Area is located in the southwestern portion of the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, an 81 square mile sub-watershed of the 660 square mile Alameda Creek Watershed. The Study Area is within the 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 180500040203 (Appendix A:
Figure 3). Segments of Collier Canyon Creek flow through the Study Area; this creek connects through engineered waterways to the Arroyo Las Positas approximately 0.4 miles to the south. The flow of water continues from Arroyo Las Positas to Arroyo Mocho, Arroyo de la Laguna, Alameda Creek and ultimately to San Francisco Bay.
EXHIBIT B
518
Onsite waters drain to Collier Canyon Creek which runs along the western site boundary.
Collier Canyon Creek, in turn, flows into a concrete-lined canal (located at the southwestern corner of the site) that acts as the confluence for waters transported via two 72-inch culverts that run below-ground along the western portion of the site, as well as a 24-inch culvert that transports flows that run below-ground along the southern portion of the site.
These combined waters then flow offsite through two box culverts that flow southerly underneath Constitution Drive and Interstate 680.
1.3 Climate
According to the Köppen climate classification system, the Study Area has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, moist winters. The Study Area generally experiences precipitation between mid-October and mid-April. A climate summary for the Livermore Municipal Airport weather station, reports the following precipitation and temperature information (Western Regional Climate Center 2022) from the years 1991- 2020:
• Average annual rainfall is 15.18 inches
• Average annual maximum temperature is 72.7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) • Average annual minimum temperature is 47.0 °F
The maximum average monthly temperature reported for the Study Area was 87.7 °F in July, and the minimum average monthly temperature was 37.5 °F in December. The wettest month of the year is February with an average rainfall of 2.92 inches, and the driest month is July with average rainfall of 0.00 inches.
1.4 Surrounding Land Use
The primary land uses immediately surrounding the Study Area include public roadways (including Highway 580 immediately south of Constitution Drive and city streets) and commercial development. Commercial development of adjacent parcels includes office buildings, a research facility, and church complex. The majority of the developed portion of the City of Livermore lies to the south of the Study Area. Undeveloped and agricultural land occurs approximately 0.5 mile north of the Study Area.
1.5 Topography
The Study Area is located immediately below the foothills of the northern extent of the Diablo Range, between Mount Diablo and Mount Boardman. Overall, the site is relatively flat, occurring on a gentle southwestern-facing slope, with elevations ranging from approximately 435 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the northern boundary to approximately 415 feet AMSL at the southwestern corner.
EXHIBIT B
519
1.6 Existing Site Conditions
A majority of the site is disturbed due to its open access to the public via the “prayer walk” as well as its location immediately adjacent to the moderately trafficked Collier Canyon Road and Constitution Drive, as well as the heavily trafficked Interstate 580. This ruderal area is dominated by species that colonize and thrive in disturbed areas, collectively referred to as ruderal species. These species may be native or non-native, but are often thought of as “weedy” species. The ruderal areas are sparely vegetated, with existing vegetation dominated by non-native herbaceous species such as stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and prickly wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), with lesser dominants including slender wild oat (Avena barbata) and alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa).
A trail (“prayer walk”) winds through much of the southern portion of the site. The trail consists of an asphalt road (former alignment of Collier Canyon Road), a gravel road (occurring over the right-of-way for the undergrounded stormwater system along the western length of the site), and a minimally upkept dirt path. The trail is largely denuded, with scattered stinkwort growing through cracks in the hardscape. In addition, the concretelined canal that occurs at the southwestern corner of the site, the fenced off electrical enclosure that occurs at the southeastern corner of the site, and the areas immediately adjacent to the southern sidewalk and the northern parking lot are all comprised of hardscape (concrete and gravel), supporting little to no vegetation.
Collier Canyon Creek transects the northern portion of the site and defines the western boundary of the site. The vegetation community surrounding and reliant on this creek is referred to as “riparian”. The riparian corridor is primarily dominated by a dense canopy cover comprised of willow (Salix lasiandra and S. lasiolepis), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and black walnut (Juglans hindsii).
Breaks in the canopy are scattered along the length of the corridor, with understory plants such as beardless wildrye (Elymus triticoides), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) dominating the openings. The northern portion of the riparian canopy is fenced on both sides.
1.7 Soils
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, a single soil unit, or type, has been mapped within the site (NRCS 2022): Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes. Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes (Appendix A: Figure 3) is a well-drained soil derived from shale and siltstone alluvium and is found in large bodies on hillsides. This clayey to silty-clay soil has a slow permeability and a high runoff class, resulting in a slight to moderate erosion hazard. Available water holding capacity is high; the water table generally occurs
EXHIBIT B
520
more than 6.5 feet below the surface. This soil type is not known to flood or pond. Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes is on the California Hydric Soils List. The onsite soils exhibited deep fissures and cracking during the November 22, 2019 site visit.1.8 Hydrology
The Study Area primarily derives its hydrology from direct precipitation, however, some portions of the site occur within the active floodplain of Collier Canyon Creek.
EXHIBIT B
521
SECTION 2. Regulatory Setting
2.1 Waters of the United States
Waters of the United States are regulated by USACE and the RWQCB in accordance with Section 404 and 401 the Clean Water Act, respectively. The scope of federally jurisdictional “waters of the United States” has been the subject of significant litigation and regulatory revisions and is subject to an ongoing federal rulemaking. (See “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’ 86 Fed. Reg. 69372 (Dec. 7, 2021)). At present, pursuant to federal district court order, the Corps is enforcing the “pre-2015” version of the federal jurisdictional definition.
Under the pre-2015 rules, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a) [51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986], the term “waters of the United States” means:
(1) All water which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; and
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than water that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6) of this section.
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirement of CWA (other than cooling ponds defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.
EXHIBIT B
522
Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(b), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. Wetlands can be perennial or intermittent and isolated or adjacent to other waters. Adjacent means “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring,” and “wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands’” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(c), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. Methods to determine the presence of wetlands are outlined below in Section 3.1.
The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal watercourses (without adjacent wetlands) is defined in 33 C.F.R. § 328.4(c)(1) as the “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(e), 51 F.R. 41251, November 13, 1986]. The bank-to-bank extent of the channel that contains the water-flow during a normal rainfall year generally serves as a good first approximation of the lateral limit of USACE jurisdiction. The upstream limits of other waters are defined as the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.
Waters of the United States do not include waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act [33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a), 51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986]. Additionally, waters of the U.S. generally do not include non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land; artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased; artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons: and waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the U.S. [51 F.R. 41217, November 13, 1986].
2.1.1 Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States As stated in Section 2.1, pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a) [51 F.R. 41250, November 13, 1986], waters of the United States include tributaries to and wetlands adjacent to waters identified as waters of the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006) (referred to as
EXHIBIT B
523
“Rapanos”) addressed which aquatic features qualify as tributaries and adjacent wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The separate opinion of Justice Kennedy in Rapanos, which is treated by federal courts as controlling law in California, concluded that adjacent wetlands are “waters of the United States” “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’ More generally, under the test articulated by Justice Kennedy in Rapanos, the key question under Section 404 is whether a waterbody has a “significant nexus” to currently or conceivably navigable waters. This fact-based inquiry requires a determination, based on consideration of hydrologic and ecological factors, of whether the waterbody may “significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable’.”
In 2008, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidance on implementing the Rapanos decision, identifying the criteria to be considered when determining jurisdictional status and those wetlands and other waters over which the agencies will assert jurisdiction categorically versus on a case-by-case basis. The 2008 USACE guidance is nonbinding and calls for a fact-specific analysis as to whether there is a “significant nexus” between a feature and navigable waters in cases where the feature is not categorically considered a water of the U.S. Key points of the guidance document are summarized as follows:
The federal agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
• Traditional navigable waters
• Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters
• Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months)
• Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries
The federal agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent
EXHIBIT B
524
• Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.
The federal agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters
• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors
2.1.2 Wetland Determinations
Consistent with the Corps’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and its 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 2008b) to be determined a wetland, the following three parameters must be met if normal circumstances are present:
1. a majority of dominant vegetation species are wetland associated species;
2. hydrologic conditions exist that result in periods of flooding, ponding, or saturation during the growing season; and
3. hydric soils are present.
The criteria necessary to meet these three wetland parameters is outlined below.
Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanent or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present” (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The USACE definition of wetlands includes "a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions," with prevalence determined by the dominant plant species comprising the plant community (op. cit.).
EXHIBIT B
525
The "50/20 rule" is used to determine dominant plant species at each sample point location.
The rule states that for each stratum in the plant community, dominant species are the most abundant plant species (when ranked in descending order of abundance and cumulatively totaled) that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species that individually comprise 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum (HQUSACE 1992). Dominant plant species observed at each sample point are classified according to their indicator status (probability of occurrence in wetlands) (Table 1). If the majority (greater than 50 percent) of the dominant vegetation on a site is classified as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), or facultative (FAC), then the site is considered to be dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Table 1. Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species Plant Species Classification Abbreviation Probability of Occurring in Wetland Obligate OBL Almost always occur in wetlands.
Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands.
Facultative FAC Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands.
Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.
Upland UPL Almost never occur in wetlands.
Plants That Are Not Listed NL (UPL) Assumed upland species.
Hydrology
Wetlands, by definition, are seasonally inundated or saturated at or near (within 12 inches of) the soil surface. To be classified as a wetland, a site should have at least one primary indicator or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology may include but are not limited to: oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches, water-stained leaves, and local soil survey data. In addition to the primary indicators, there are a variety of secondary wetland hydrology indicators. Secondary indicators include, but are not limited to: water marks, drift lines, sediment deposition, drainage patterns, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. When no primary indicators of wetland hydrology are observed at a sample point, two or more secondary indicators are required to confirm wetland hydrology.
Soils
EXHIBIT B
526
A hydric soil is defined as a soil that is formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2003). Indicators that a hydric soil is present include soil color (gleyed soils and soils with bright mottles and/or low matrix chroma), aquic or preaquic moisture regime, reducing soil conditions, sulfidic material (odor), soils listed on hydric soils list, iron and manganese concretions, organic soils (Histosols), histic epipedon, high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils, and organic streaking in sandy soils. A soil pit is excavated to the depth of refusal at each sample point. The soil is then examined for hydric soil indicators.
The matrix color and mottle color (if present) of the soil are determined using the Munsell Soil Color Charts.
2.2 Waters of the State
The RWQCB also is authorized under Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Act to regulate discharges to waters of the State through issuance of permits referred to as waste discharge requirements (WDRs). In Section 13050(e), the act defines waters of the State to mean any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of California.
This definition may include wetlands and drainages that are outside federal jurisdiction.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) further clarified the definition of wetlands that qualify as waters of the State through adoption of the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) (SWRCB 2021). Under the Procedures, the State defines wetlands as follows:
“An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The Procedures further state that waters of the State include all waters of the U.S., including all “features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of ‘waters of the U.S.’ or any current or historic federal regulation defining ‘waters of the U.S.’ under the Clean Water Act.” USACE wetland delineation procedures are to be used to identify State-regulated wetlands, and the following wetland types are waters of the State:
1. natural wetland;
2. wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the State; and
3. artificial wetlands that meet certain criteria.
EXHIBIT B
527
2.3 CDFW Jurisdiction
The CDFW also regulates diversions and obstructions of the natural flows, and material changes or uses of the beds, channels, or banks, of rivers, streams, and lakes under Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). The term stream, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1.72 as follows: “A stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” Per Section 1.56, the term lake “includes natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” Per A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements: Section 1600-1607 California Fish and Game Code (Field Guide; California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1994), this definition is not complete with respect to Sections 1601 or 1603 because it does not define the terms bed, channel or bank and does not define stream related features such as aquatic life, riparian vegetation, etc. The Field Guide clarifies this definition as follows.
1. The term stream can include intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS Maps), and watercourses with subsurface flow. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or streamdependent wildlife.
2. Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation.
3. A stream not only includes water (at least on an intermittent or ephemeral basis), but also a bed, bank, and/or levee.
4. The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in ways depending on a particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resources at risk. The following criteria are applicable to the proposed project.
a. The outer edge of riparian vegetation is generally used as the line of demarcation between riparian and upland habitats and is therefore a reasonable and identifiable boundary for the lateral extent of a stream. b. Most streams have a natural bank which confines flows to the bed or channel except during flooding. In some instances, particularly on smaller streams or dry washes with little or no riparian habitat, the bank should be used to mark the lateral extent of a stream.
c. A levee or other artificial stream bank could be used to mark the lateral extent of a stream. However, in many instances, there can be extensive areas of valuable riparian habitat located behind a levee (CDFG 1994).
EXHIBIT B
528
SECTION 3. Methods
Aquatic features in the Study Area were mapped using data derived from field surveys. Field surveys were conducted on January 25, 2022, by Sadie McGarvey and Haley Henderson of Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC (JMC). The boundaries of potential waters of the U.S./State and sample point locations were mapped using a Juniper Systems Geode Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) with sub-meter accuracy using standard field methodologies (i.e., paired data set analyses). All wetland data was recorded on Arid West Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix B). The shapefiles obtained from the mapping effort were projected onto an aerial map using QGIS, Version 3.22.1 (see Appendix A: Figure 4).
Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Co. 1990) were used to aid in identifying hydric soils in the field. The Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2022) was used for plant nomenclature and identification. Plant wetland indicator status was provided by The National Wetland Plant List 2018 wetland ratings (USACE 2018). Representative photographs of the project site are provided in Appendix C.
EXHIBIT B
529
SECTION 4. Results
A total of 513 linear feet (LF) of the Collier Canyon Creek occurs within the Study Area, including three in-channel wetlands totaling approximately 0.18 acre. In addition, approximately 1.02 acres of CDFW-regulated riparian zone associated with both onsite and offsite portions of Collier Canyon Creek occurs within the Study Area (Table 2). Delineation maps and riparian maps are provided in Appendix A, Figures 4 and 5 respectively.
Representative photographs of the Study Area are included in Appendix C. A discussion of aquatic features in the Study Area is provided below.
Table 2. Potentially Jurisdictional Waters and Riparian Zones* Feature Type Acreage Linear Feet USACE
Jurisdiction
RWQCB
Jurisdiction
CDFW
Jurisdiction
Potential Waters of the U.S. and State
Streams -- 513 X X X
In-Channel Wetlands 0.18 -- X X X
W1 0.08 -- X X X
W2 0.06 -- X X X
W3 0.04 -- X X X
CDFW Jurisdiction
Riparian Zones 1.02 1,560 X
*The regulatory agencies have final say over which aquatic features they consider jurisdictional.
4.1 Intermittent Stream
Collier Canyon Creek traverses the northern portion of the Study Area, flowing northeast to southwest, then turns southerly, roughly defining the western boundary of the Study Area.
The ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) within the onsite portion of Collier Canyon Creek ranges between 1 and 6 feet wide, and 4 and 8 inches deep. The channel bed substrate is generally sandy/gravelly. The streambanks are densely vegetated with ruderal species from the adjacent uplands.
4.2 In-Channel Wetlands
Three locations within the Collier Canyon Creek streambed are dominated by dense wetland vegetation, primarily bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.). One wetland is transected by the approximately 1-foot-wide and 4-inch-deep low-flow channel of Collier Canyon Creek (W1).
Immediately upstream from the remaining wetlands (W2 and W3), the low flow channel flattens out (with no defined thalweg) and water flows across these in-channel wetlands before reentering the low-flow channel between 25 and 85 feet downstream.
EXHIBIT B
530
4.3 Riparian Zones
The Study Area contains approximately 1.02 acres of riparian habitat along Collier Canyon Creek. Canopy cover ranges between 80% and 100% along much of the 1,560 LF stretch of riparian zone occurring onsite, with several non-contiguous stretches exhibiting 0% canopy cover. The edge of the riparian corridor was delineated at the TOB of Collier Canyon Creek and/or the edge of overlapping canopy cover - whichever is greater. The riparian corridor extended as much as 70 feet from the OHWM of Collier Canyon Creek.
EXHIBIT B
531
SECTION 5. Conclusion
A total of 513 LF and 0.18 acre of potential wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. and State are present in the Study Area, as well as 1.02 acres of CDFW-regulated riparian zones.
All delineated wetland and non-wetland waters are assumed to be subject to USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction for the purposes of the Collier Canyon Parcels Project, and all delineated streams, wetlands, and riparian zones are assumed to be subject to CDFW jurisdiction. These conclusions are subject to modification following USACE’s PJD process and review by State agencies.
EXHIBIT B
532
SECTION 6. References
California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600- 1607, California Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division (ESD).
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
HQUSACE (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1992. Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual. Memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams.
Dated: 6 March 1992.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2022. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed January 2022].
Kollmorgen Instruments Company. 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Corporation. Baltimore, Maryland.
NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 5.01. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.). USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.
NRCS. 2022. Web Soil Survey 2.0 National Cooperative Soil Survey. Available online at:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ [accessed March 2022].
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.
USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5. Accessed February 2022. Available from: https://cwbi-app.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/v34/home/home.html.
USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Accessed September 27, 2021. Available from:
EXHIBIT B
533
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
02/documents/cwa_jurisdiction_following_rapanos120208.pdf.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2021. Cooperative Climatological Data Summaries.
Accessed November 2021. Available from: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgibin/cliMAIN.pl?ca5853.
EXHIBIT B
534
APPENDICIES
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix C. Representative Site Photographs
EXHIBIT B
535
APPENDIX A. Figures
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map
Figure 4. Delineation Map
Figure 5. Riparian Map
EXHIBIT B
536
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT B
537
Figure 2. USGS Topographic Map
EXHIBIT B
538
Figure 3. Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Map
EXHIBIT B
539
Figure 4. Delineation Map
EXHIBIT B
540
Figure 5. Riparian Map
EXHIBIT B
541
APPENDIX B. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms
EXHIBIT B
542
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Collier Canyon Parcels Livermore, Alameda 1/25/22
The Pacific Companies CA 1
Sadie McGarvey and Haley Henderson S1 T3S R1E
none 0
Central California Coastal Valleys 37.70398800 -121.80640900 NAVD88 Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes Hydric
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
Avena barbata 30 X NL
Carduus pycnocephalus 25 X NL
Geranium dissectum 5 NL
Epilobium ciliatum 10 FACW
70 30
0 2
0 ✔
EXHIBIT B
543
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
1 0-12 10yr3/2 100 clay loam
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
EXHIBIT B
544
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Collier Canyon Parcels Livermore, Alameda 1/25/22
The Pacific Companies CA 2
Sadie McGarvey and Haley Henderson S1 T3S R1E
none 0
Central California Coastal Valleys 37.70180200 -121.80633250 NAVD88 Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes Hydric
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
Avena barbata 65 X NL
Medicago polymorpha 25 X FACU
Sinapis arvensis 10 NL
100
0 2
0 ✔
EXHIBIT B
545
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
2 0-12 10yr3/2 100 gravely loa soil mixing
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
EXHIBIT B
546
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Collier Canyon Parcels Livermore, Alameda 1/25/22
The Pacific Companies CA 3
Sadie McGarvey and Haley Henderson S1 T3S R1E
none 0
Central California Coastal Valleys 37.70181900 -121.80754825 NAVD88 Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes Hydric
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
Hordeum marinum 100 X FAC
100
1 1
100
✔
✔
EXHIBIT B
547
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
3 0-6 10yr3/2 100 clay loam 50%+ pea gravel
6-8 10yr3/2 100 clay loam 30% bigger gravel
8-12 10yr3/2 100 clay loam minimal gravel
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
EXHIBIT B
548
APPENDIX C. Representative Site Photographs
Photograph 1. Representative photo of the Study Area, looking north-northwest from the southern extent of the trail.
Photograph 2. Representative photo of the Study Area, looking south from the center of the site.
EXHIBIT B
549
Photograph 3. Representative photo of the generally densely vegetated banks of Collier Canyon Creek.
Photograph 4. Representative photo of in-channel wetland
EXHIBIT B
550
APPENDIX D
FEASIBILITY EVALUATION AND PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
EXHIBIT B
551
Date: October 25, 2022
Project No.: 209-2-1
Prepared For: Mr. Don Slattery
THE PACIFIC COMPANIES
348 North Canyon Parkway
Livermore, California 94551
Re: Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary
Geotechnical Recommendations
Cornerstone Church and Chu Properties
Livermore, California
Dear Mr. Slattery:
This letter provides the results of our geotechnical feasibility evaluation and updated preliminary recommendations for the project referenced above. For our use, we have been provided a copy of the Preliminary Site Plan prepared by CBG Civil Engineers, dated January 17, 2022.
Findings and recommendations provided herein are intended for preliminary project planning purposes only and are not intended to be used in final design or construction.
Project Understanding
GENERAL
As referenced in this letter, we understand this geotechnical evaluation is intended to provide feasibility-level recommendations for your planning purposes. This feasibility evaluation is provided to help determine potential design constrains for your forward planning and entitlement.
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the conceptual plans provided, the project will consist of redeveloping the approximately 10½-acre site for new townhome and affordable housing units. The project site is split into two main parcels identified as “Parcel A” at the northern end and “Parcel B”, which constitutes the central and southern site area. Parcel A will include at-grade asphalt parking and a five-story structure with 110 affordable housing units; the ground floor of which is anticipated to be at-grade parking. Parcel B will include a total of 31 townhome structures with between 3 to 7 townhomes per structure, for a total of 125 units. New private streets are planned to connect the entire development. Appurtenant flatwork, landscape, utilities and other pertinent site improvements are also anticipated for construction.
EXHIBIT B
552
Site Exploration
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located north of Highway 580 and west of Collier Canyon Road in Livermore, California. The site is bounded by an existing residence to the north, existing commercial developments to the west, Constitution Drive to the south, and Collier Canyon Road to the east.
At the time of our exploration, the site was undeveloped and covered with tall vegetation. An asphalt concrete (AC) road ran generally in a southwest – northeast direction. In addition, a gravel access road ran the entire length along the western site boundary. An enclosed structure was located in the southeast corner. Based on our observations, areas of undocumented fill and soil stockpiles were located throughout the site. Various debris including concrete and construction materials were also noted. The fill and debris could have been placed during past site developments and/or during construction of nearby projects.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on exploratory borings performed during our investigation, the site is generally blanketed by very stiff to hard fat clay to depths ranging from approximately 3 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface. Below the surface clayey soils, our borings encountered interbedded medium stiff to hard lean clays with varying sand contents to a depth of 45 feet, the maximum depth explored during this investigation. The attached site plan shows approximately boring locations and associated boring logs.
We performed two Plasticity Index (PI) tests on representative samples of the clayey soils at depths of 2 and 6½ feet. Tests resulted in PIs of 39 and 40 with liquid limits of 56 and 58, indicating a high expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles.
GROUND WATER
Borings performed during this investigation encountered ground water at depths ranging from 19½ to 23½ feet below the ground surface during drilling. Maps published by the California Geological Survey indicate historical high ground water depths range from approximately 20 to 30 feet below the existing grade. Fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patterns, and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made.
Findings and Recommendations
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Based on exploratory borings performed, available information to date, and our engineering judgment, the planned residential mixed-use project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
This letter report and preliminary recommendations are intended to assist you for the project planning purposes only. A design-level geotechnical investigation should be performed once development plans are finalized.
EXHIBIT B
553
Potential geotechnical concerns, design considerations, and preliminary recommendations are provided herein. A brief description of these concerns follows. Undocumented fill
Very highly expansive clayey soils
Undocumented Fill
Our borings did not encounter undocumented fill. However, based on our site observations, localized areas of undocumented fill should be expected, especially in areas of past development. Existing underground improvements, such as buried utilities or tanks, will need to be removed or demolished during construction.
If undocumented fill is encountered during site grading, it should be removed and replaced as engineered fill. Any fill should be completely removed from within building and bridge foundation areas and to a lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the structural footprint or to a lateral distance equal to fill depth below the perimeter footing, whichever is greater. Fills extending into planned pavement and flatwork areas may be left in place provided they are determined to be a low risk for future differential settlement and that the upper 12 to 18 inches of fill below pavement subgrade is re-worked and compacted.
We recommend this concern be evaluated further during the design-level geotechnical investigation. As exploratory borings are relatively small in diameter, it may be beneficial to use exploratory test pits with a backhoe to evaluate fill depths and limits.
Very Highly Expansive Clayey Soils
The surficial clayey soil is very highly expansive. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. To reduce the potential for damage to the planned structures and slabs-on-grade should have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of nonexpansive fill; foundations should be designed to extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation or to resist uplift forces. In addition, it is important to limit moisture changes in the surficial soils by using positive drainage away from the building as well as limiting landscaping watering.
FOUNDATIONS
Based on available information to date, the planned residential buildings can likely be supported on conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footings bearing entirely on natural, undisturbed soil, or compacted fill. For your forward planning purposes, maximum allowable bearing pressures on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads may be feasible. As an alternative, mat foundations are also feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint. The feasibility spread footings and mat foundations should be evaluated further during the design-level geotechnical investigation.
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
For your project planning purposes, a preliminary pavement section consisting of 2½ to 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 to 12 inches of aggregate base may be used for Traffic Index (TI)
EXHIBIT B
554
ranging from approximately 4.0 to 5.5. These estimates and corresponding section alternatives are based on a designed resistance value (R-value) of 5. Above pavement sections should be evaluated further during the design-level geotechnical investigation.
As the surficial soil is highly expansive, and to provide better subgrade support, consideration may be given to chemical-treating (lime-treating) the subgrade prior to paving. For your project budgeting and preliminary design purposes, we estimate the native clayey soil will need to be mixed with approximately 4 percent quicklime (CaO) by weight. If lime-treating is performed, AC pavement section alternatives provided above may be reduced to 2½ to 3 inches of AC over 4½ inches of AB or allow for increased traffic.
If this option is considered, additional laboratory tests should be performed during the designlevel geotechnical investigation to further evaluate the optimum percentage of chemical treatment required.
DESIGN-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Preliminary recommendations in this feasibility study are based on limited site development information and limited exploration. As site conditions may vary significantly between the widely-spaced, small-diameter borings performed during this investigation, we also recommend that we be retained to 1) perform a design-level geotechnical investigation, once detailed site development plans are available; 2) to review the geotechnical aspects of the project structural, civil, and landscape plans and specifications, allowing sufficient time to provide the design team with any comments prior to issuing the plans for construction; and 3) be present to provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and foundation construction.
Closure
This letter has been prepared for the sole use of The Pacific Companies for the Cornerstone Church and Chu Properties project in Livermore, California. Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices at this time and location.
No warranties are expressed or implied.
If you have any questions or need any additional information from us, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.
Stephen C. Ohlsen, P.E.
Project Engineer
Danh T. Tran, P.E.
Senior Principal Engineer
EXHIBIT B
555
DTT:sco
Attachment: Figure 1 – Site Plan
Exploratory Boring Logs (EB-1 through EB-7)
EXHIBIT B
556
N
0 120 240
APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
Project Number
Figure Number
209-2-1
Figure 1
June 2010
CORNERSTONE FELLOWSHIP
PHASE I EXPANSION
LIVERMORE, CA
Site Plan
EB-1 EB-2 EB-3
EB-4
EB-5
EB-6
EB-7
Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring
EXHIBIT
B
557
Poorly-Graded Gravelly Sand
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION PASSES
ON NO 4. SIEVE
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL
POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL
SILTY GRAVEL
CLAYEY GRAVEL
WELL-GRADED SAND
POORLY-GRADED SAND
SILTY SAND
CLAYEY SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
FAT CLAY
ELASTIC SILT
ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT
*
NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST).
*
Modified California (2.5" I.D.)
Well-Graded Gravel
with Clay
-
-
-
-
-
Boulders and Cobble
Artificial/Undocumented Fill
Asphalt
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
CL
ML
OL
CH
MH
OH
Well-Graded Gravel
with Silt -
CLEAN GRAVELS
<5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH FINES
PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR >12% FINES
* UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH IN KIPS/SQ. FT. AS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY
TESTING OR APPROXIMATED BY THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST, POCKET PENETROMETER, TORVANE, OR VISUAL OBSERVATION.
Well Graded Gravelly Sand
ADDITIONAL TESTS Gravelly Silt
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS >50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE FINE-GRAINED SOILS >50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE "A" LINE
PEAT
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT<50
SILTS AND CLAYS
Clayey Sand
LIQUID LIMIT>50
Silt
Sand
OTHER MATERIAL SYMBOLS
LIQUID LIMIT (%)
CH
CL OH & MH
-
-
CLEAN SANDS
<5% FINES
SANDS AND FINES
>12% FINES
INORGANIC
>50% OF COARSE
FRACTION RETAINED
ON NO 4. SIEVE
SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND
SWELL TEST
CYCLIC TRIAXIAL
TORVANE SHEAR
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
PLASTICITY CHART
CL-ML
SANDS
No Recovery
PLASTICITY INDEX
0 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.5
0.5-1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 4.0
OVER 4.0
(RECORDED AS BLOWS / FOOT)
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
0 - 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
OVER 30
0 - 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
OVER 50
SILT & CLAY
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
SAND & GRAVEL
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
PT
WATER LEVEL
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FOOT*
Topsoil
PLASTICITY INDEX (%)
Sandy Silt
Poorly-Graded Sand
with Clay
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487-10)
Figure Number
A-1
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE
PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
PI PLOTS >"A" LINE
PI PLOTS <"A" LINE
LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3
FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL
FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH
Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3
Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3
ORGANIC
INORGANIC
ORGANIC
GRAVELS
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (CORROSIVITY)
CONSOLIDATED DRAINED TRIAXIAL
CONSOLIDATION
CONSOLIDATED UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DIRECT SHEAR
POCKET PENETROMETER (TSF)
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH IN KSF)
R-VALUE
SIEVE ANALYSIS: % PASSING
#200 SIEVE
MATERIAL
TYPES CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES GROUP
SYMBOL
CA
CD
CN
CU
DS
PP
(3.0)
RV
SA
Shelby Tube
LEGEND TO SOIL
DESCRIPTIONS
UU UNCONSOLIDATED
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
(WITH SHEAR STRENGTH
IN KSF)
SW
TC
TV
UC
(1.5)
PI
SAMPLER TYPES
SPT
STRENGTH** (KSF)
Rock Core Grab Sample
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
EXHIBIT B
558
17 19
14 24
MC-9B
110 20
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:54 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ 15 107
110 19
115
108
99 105
92 21
19 106
Fat Clay (CH)
hard, moist, dark gray brown, some fine sand,
high plasticity
MC-6A
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
hard to very stiff, moist, olive brown with light
brown mottles, fine sand, moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
hard, moist, gray and brown mottled, fine
sand, moderate plasticity
some light brown mottles
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
hard, moist, gray with brown mottled, fine
sand, moderate plasticity
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
very stiff to hard, moist, dark gray and olive
mottles, fine sand, moderate plasticity
some medium to coarse sand
64 MC-7A
MC-5A
MC-4A
MC-3A
MC-2B
39 MC-8A
43 41
33 25
23 12
38 MC-1B
57 PAGE 1 OF 2
HAND PENETROMETER
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
BORING NUMBER EB-1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
PERCENT PASSING
TRIAXIAL
NO. 200 SIEVE
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT, % 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35DEPTH (ft)
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
DESCRIPTION
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
SAMPLES
TYPE AND NUMBER
BORING DEPTH 45 ft.
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
GROUND ELEVATION
AT TIME OF DRILLING 22 ft.
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
LOGGED BY PNC
NOTES AT END OF DRILLING 19.5 ft. ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
Continued Next Page
TORVANE
SYMBOL
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
EXHIBIT B
559
SYMBOL
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
TORVANE
ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
BORING NUMBER EB-1
PAGE 2 OF 2
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
22 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
very stiff, moist, olive brown with light brown
mottles, fine sand, moderate plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 45.0 feet.
47 27
MC-10A
MC-11B
113 18
104
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
HAND PENETROMETER
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
DESCRIPTION
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:54 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ
SAMPLES
TYPE AND NUMBER
DEPTH (ft)
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
EXHIBIT B
560
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
GROUND ELEVATION
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
TORVANE
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
SYMBOL
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
ELEVATION (ft)
88 Fat Clay (CH)
very stiff to stiff, moist, dark gray with olive
brown mottles, some fine sand, high plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 5.0 feet.
14 25
MC-1B
MC-2B
89 28
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
NOTES
LOGGED BY PNC
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10 BORING DEPTH 5 ft. 27 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
HAND PENETROMETER
DEPTH (ft)
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ BORING NUMBER EB-2
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
SAMPLES
TYPE AND NUMBER
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
EXHIBIT B
561
108 17
104
95 23
21 17
99 17
25 26
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
LOGGED BY PNC
NOTES
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ 62 106
96 97
39 Bottom of Boring at 25.0 feet.
33 52
22 13
16 Liquid Limit = 26, Plastic Limit = 17
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
medium stiff, moist, olive brown, fine sand,
low plasticity
Fat Clay (CH)
stiff, moist, olive, trace fine sand, high
plasticity
Liquid Limit = 56, Plastic Limit = 17
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
very stiff to hard, moist, gray-brown, fine
sand, high plasticity
Fat Clay (CH)
stiff, moist, dark gray with brown mottles,
some fine sand, high plasticity
MC-7B 53
18 18 MC-6B
MC-5B
MC-4B
MC-3A
MC-2B
MC-1B
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL DESCRIPTION PERCENT PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
9 UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
DEPTH (ft)
HAND PENETROMETER
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
SAMPLES
N-Value (uncorrected)
TYPE AND NUMBER
blows per foot
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
LONGITUDE
GROUND ELEVATION
SYMBOL
AT END OF DRILLING 22 ft.
AT TIME OF DRILLING 23.5 ft.
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10 BORING DEPTH 25 ft.
LATITUDE
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
PAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER EB-3
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
ELEVATION (ft)
TORVANE
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
EXHIBIT B
562
DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ NOTES
LOGGED BY PNC
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 BORING DEPTH 10 ft.
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
Fat Clay (CH)
stiff, moist, dark gray, some fine sand,
moderate to high plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
hard, moist, olive with light brown mottles, fine
sand, low to moderate plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 10.0 feet.
11 18
28 28
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-4B
22 20
9 13
100
101
103
111
MC-3B SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER
NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
DEPTH (ft)
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
HAND PENETROMETER
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-4
PAGE 1 OF 1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
ELEVATION (ft)
SYMBOL
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
DESCRIPTION
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
TORVANE
EXHIBIT B
563
ELEVATION (ft)
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
GROUND ELEVATION
LATITUDE
SYMBOL
DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10 BORING DEPTH 5 ft.
LONGITUDE
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
19 Fat Clay (CH)
very stiff, moist, dark gray with olive mottles,
some fine sand, high plasticity
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
hard, moist, olive with light brown mottles, fine
sand, moderate plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 5.0 feet.
19 56
MC-1B
MC-2B
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
14 103
114
NOTES
LOGGED BY PNC
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 5/18/10
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
TORVANE
NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
HAND PENETROMETER
DEPTH (ft)
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-5
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
DESCRIPTION
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
EXHIBIT B
564
BORING DEPTH 5 ft.
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
SYMBOL
GROUND ELEVATION
TORVANE
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
22 Fat Clay (CH)
very stiff, moist, dark gray, trace fine sand,
high plasticity
Liquid Limit = 58, Plastic Limit = 18
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
hard, moist, olive with light brown mottles, fine
sand, high plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 5.0 feet.
37 46
MC-1B
MC-2B
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10
16 101
98 41
NOTES
LOGGED BY PNC
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc. ELEVATION (ft) CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
HAND PENETROMETER
SAMPLES
TYPE AND NUMBER
DEPTH (ft)
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-6
PAGE 1 OF 1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
DESCRIPTION
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
EXHIBIT B
565
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
GROUND ELEVATION
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
TORVANE
AT END OF DRILLING Not Encountered
SYMBOL
AT TIME OF DRILLING Not Encountered
ELEVATION (ft)
103
Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
stiff, moist, dark gray, fine sand, high plasticity
Bottom of Boring at 5.0 feet.
19 21
MC-1B
MC-2B
99 23
PROJECT NAME Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
NOTES
LOGGED BY PNC
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-40, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DATE STARTED 5/18/10 DATE COMPLETED 5/18/10 BORING DEPTH 5 ft. 20 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 NATURAL
MOISTURE CONTENT, %
DRY UNIT WEIGHT
PCF
HAND PENETROMETER
DEPTH (ft)
PERCENT PASSING
NO. 200 SIEVE
PLASTICITY INDEX, %
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT LOCATION Livermore, CA
PROJECT NUMBER 209-2-1
CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP - CORNERSTONE.GDT - 6/4/10 10:53 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\209-2-1 CORNERSTONE PARCEL.GPJ BORING NUMBER EB-7
UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED
TRIAXIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
SAMPLES
TYPE AND NUMBER
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
EXHIBIT B
566
Cornerstone Parcel 1 Expansion
Livermore, CA
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
209-2-1
Figure B1
June 2010 FLL
Plasticity Index Testing Summary
60 0
10 20
30 40
50 0 100908070605040302010
CL-ML OL or ML
OH or MH
CH
CL
Plasticity Index (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Group Name ( ASTM D2487) USCS - Boring No.
Symbol
Depth
(ft)
Natural
Water
Content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plastic
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
Passing
No. 200
(%)
“A” line
Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318) Testing Summary
EB-3 56 176.5 17 39 Fat Clay with Sand (CH)
EB-3 26 2119.5 17 9 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
EB-6 58 222.0 18 40 Fat Clay (CH)
62 –
–
EXHIBIT B
567
APPENDIX E
PHASE I ESA
EXHIBIT B
568
KCE-2005-162E-R1
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
Vacant Land
Client Project Identification: Constitution Drive
(APNs: 905-0015-008, 905-0015-026, 905-0015-027,
905-0015-028 & 905-0015-029)
2620 & 2768 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, California 94551
Prepared For:
Pacific West Communities, Inc.
430 East State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, Idaho 83616
KCE-2022-488E-R1
February 1, 2023
EXHIBIT B
569
KCE-2022-488E-R1
February 1, 2023
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................... 1 II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 A. Purpose................................................................................................................................ 3 B. Detailed Scope-of-Services................................................................................................. 4 C. Significant Assumptions..................................................................................................... 4 D. Limitations and Exceptions................................................................................................. 4 E. Special Terms and Conditions............................................................................................ 5 F. User Reliance ...................................................................................................................... 5 III. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 5 A. Location and Description.................................................................................................... 5 B. Site and Vicinity General Characteristics........................................................................... 5 C. Current Use of the Property ................................................................................................ 6 D. Description of Structures and Other Improvements ........................................................... 6 E. Current Uses of the Adjoining Properties........................................................................... 6 IV. USER PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................... 7 A. Title Records....................................................................................................................... 7 B. Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations....................................................... 7 C. Specialized Knowledge....................................................................................................... 7 D. Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information........................................... 7 E. Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues.................................................................. 7 F. Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information ...................................................... 8 G. Reason for Performing Phase I ........................................................................................... 8 H. Vapor Encroachment .......................................................................................................... 8 I. Other ................................................................................................................................... 8 V. RECORDS REVIEW............................................................................................................. 8 A. Standard Environmental Record Sources ........................................................................... 8 A1. Subject Site................................................................................................................... 8 A2. Site Vicinity.................................................................................................................. 9 B. Additional Environmental Record Sources ...................................................................... 12 C. Physical Setting Source(s) ................................................................................................ 13 C1. Topography................................................................................................................. 13 C2. Geology/Hydrogeology .............................................................................................. 13
EXHIBIT B
570
KCE-2022-488E-R1
February 1, 2023
ii
D. Historical Use Information - Subject Property ................................................................. 14 D1. Building Records........................................................................................................ 14 D2. Historic Maps ............................................................................................................. 15 D3. Aerial Photographs..................................................................................................... 15 D4. Historical Topographic Maps..................................................................................... 16 D5. City Directory Abstract .............................................................................................. 16 D6. Recorded Land Title Records..................................................................................... 17 E. Historical Use Information - Adjoining Properties........................................................... 17 E1. Historic Maps ............................................................................................................. 17 E2. Aerial Photographs..................................................................................................... 17 E3. Historical Topographic Maps..................................................................................... 17 E4. City Directory Abstract .............................................................................................. 18 VI. SITE RECONNAISSANCE................................................................................................ 18 A. Non-ASTM Scope Considerations ................................................................................... 18 B. General Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 19 C. Observations ..................................................................................................................... 19 D. Site Vicinity Reconnaissance............................................................................................ 21 VII. INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................................... 21 A. Interview with Owner ....................................................................................................... 21 B. Interview with Site Manager............................................................................................. 21 C. Interviews with Occupants................................................................................................ 21 D. Interviews with Local Government Officials ................................................................... 22 E. Interviews with Others...................................................................................................... 22 VIII. VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREEN ............................................................................. 22 A. Subject Property - VES..................................................................................................... 22 B. Site Vicinity - VES ........................................................................................................... 23 IX. FINDINGS........................................................................................................................... 24 X. SIGNATURE....................................................................................................................... 26 XI. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................ 26
EXHIBIT B
571
KCE-2022-488E-R1
February 1, 2023
iii
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures 1 through 3
Appendix B. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Radius Map Report Appendix C. Regulatory Records Search
Appendix C-1. California State Regional Water Quality Control Board Appendix C-2. California State Department of Toxic Substance Control Appendix C-3. Alameda County Department of Environmental Health Appendix C-4. City of Livermore – City Clerk’s Office – Fire Department Appendix C-5. Hydrology Information
Appendix C-6. National Wetlands Inventory – Wetland Map Appendix C-7. Federal Emergency Management Agency – National Flood Hazard Map
Appendix D. Historical Research Documentation
Appendix D-1. City of Livermore – City Clerk’s Office – Building Department
Appendix D-2. Historic Maps
Appendix D-3. Aerial Photographs
Appendix D-4. Historical Topographic Maps
Appendix D-5. City Directory Abstract
Appendix E. User Questionnaire and Title Report
Appendix F. Site Photographs
Appendix G. Vapor Encroachment Screen
Appendix H. Qualifications of Environmental Professionals
EXHIBIT B
572
KCE-2022-488E-R1
February 1, 2023