Agenda packet — Oakley City Council, April 28, 2026 (part 1 of 4)

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL

ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Tuesday, April 28, 2026
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561.

Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.

VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road. Agendas are also posted on the City's Internet Website www.oakleyca.gov.

A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council, Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or Oakley Public Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, in the Main Lobby of Oakley City Hall.

Agendas may be picked up at Oakley City Hall for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City's agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000.

We provide social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, X, Next Door and Instagram.

If you require special accommodation, please call the City Clerk's office at (925) 625-7000 before the meeting or contact City staff at the meeting.

Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be 1 1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing May 3-9, 2026 as Municipal Clerks Week (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

1.4 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Update (Xon Burris, Assistant Fire Chief)

1.5 Update from Youth Advisory Council (Alicia O'Leary, Recreation and Events Coordinator)

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

3. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.

Information Regarding Public Comment
Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City's jurisdiction. In compliance with State law, the council may not take action or have discussion on any item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Public comments on items listed on the agenda will be heard as the Mayor calls the items. In compliance with State law, the Council may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a public speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk seated in the Council Chamber prior to the agenda item being called. The Mayor will call you by name to the podium to hear your comment. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. Online public comments are accepted until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting and can be submitted at https://www.oakleyca.gov/publiccomment.

Proclamation
At this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority on non-agendized items.

Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. The public may request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Mayor. 2 4.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting held April 14, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.2 Approve Minutes from the Special Meeting held April 14, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.3 Report out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

4.4 Adopt a Resolution Re-Appointing Michael Krieg to the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees for a New Four-Year Term Effective May 7, 2026 through May 6, 2030 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.5 Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 315 – Magnolia Park Playground Resurfacing and Retrofitting Project (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.6 Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 317 - Novarina Park Playground Expansion and Resurfacing Project (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.7 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Agreement with Live Oak Investors, LLC for “Agreement of Property Owner for Provision of Landscaping in the Public Right of Way” pursuant to Conditions of Approval in Resolution No. 90-24 for Live Oak Industrial Park and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.8 Adopt a Resolution Approving the Agreement with Live Oak Investors, LLC (APN 037-100-065) for “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” for DR 07-23 Live Oak Industrial Park Project Located at 5400 Live Oak Avenue and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Minutes
Minutes
Memo
Staff Report

1. Proposed Resolution
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Vicinity Map

3. Proposal
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Vicinity Map

3. Proposal
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Maintenance Map

3. Landscape Maintenance Agreement
3 Director/City Engineer)

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Tentative Map (TM 02-23) - Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council Regarding an Application Requesting Approval of a Tentative Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (APNs 033-140-020, 033-140- 021, and 033-140-028)(Jose Cortez, Senior Planner)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA”) Determination: Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.

5.2 Zoning Text Amendments (RZ 2026-001) – Adopt an Ordinance Amending Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.1.1102 (Accessory Dwelling Units) (RZ 2026-001) (Jose Cortez, Senior Planner)
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Determination: City Council finding the project is exempt from CEQA under the “Common Sense” categorical exemption (14 Cal. Code Regs/CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3)

6. REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Annual Report of Military Equipment Usage-2025 (Paul Beard, Chief of Police)
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Maintenance Map

3. Storm Water O&M Agreement
Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Adopt the Resolution
Staff Report

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Vicinity Map

3. Project Plans

4. Planning Commission Resolution No 6-26

5. Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.a. Exhibit A: Errata to Stonecreek Subdivision CEQA Documents

5.b Exhibit B: Stonecreek Subdivsion: Response to Comments

6. Proposed Resolution

6.a Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Public Testimony, 5) Close the Public Hearing, 6) Deliberate, 7) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Introduce the Ordinance
Staff Report

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-26

3. Proposed Ordinance
4 7. REPORTS

7.1 City Manager
(a) City Manager

8. WORK SESSION

8.1 Mobile Vendor Work Session - Work Session to Discuss the City of Oakley’s Current Regulations Pertaining to Mobile Vendors(Evan Gorman, Associate Planner)

8.2 Short Term Rentals Work Session - The Purpose of this Work Session is to Facilitate Discussion with the City Council. Staff will Receive Direction, if any, from the City Council and Proceed as Directed. (Jose Cortez, Senior Planner)

8.3 Overview and Update on the Residential Rental Inspection Program Authorized Under OMC 4.30 (Conrad Fromme, Chief Building Official)

9. CLOSED SESSIONS

9.1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e)
Title: City Manager

10. ADJOURN
Staff Report

1. Oakley Police Department 2025 Annual Military Equipment Report

2. Oakley Police Department Policies regarding Military Equipment Staff Report

1. Ordinance Comparison Table

2. Vendor Application Packet

3. Outdoor Sales Municipal Code Chapter
Staff Report

1. City Council Staff Report from February 10, 2026 Work Session on Short Term Rentals

2. Short-Term Rentals Ordinance (OMC chapter 5.15)-with mark ups Staff Report

1. Rental Verification Affidavit Registration Form

2. Residential Rental Inspection Program Self Inspection Checklist

3. OMC 4.30 Rental Dwelling Unit Inspection Program
5 Proclamation
57 th Annual Professional Municipal Clerks Week
May 3-9, 2026
WHEREAS, the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk, a time honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants; and WHEREAS, the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies and agencies of government at other levels; and WHEREAS, Professional Municipal Clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all; and
WHEREAS, the Professional Municipal Clerk serves as the information center on functions of local government and community; and
WHEREAS, Professional Municipal Clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops and the annual meetings of their state, provincial, county and international professional organizations; and
WHEREAS, it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Hugh Henderson, Mayor of the City of Oakley along with the members of the Oakley City Council do hereby proclaim the week of May 3 through 9, 2026 as Professional Municipal Clerks Week and further extend appreciation to our Professional Municipal Clerk, and to all Professional Municipal Clerks for the vital services they perform and their exemplary dedication to the communities they represent.

Dated: April 28,2026
_____________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY

COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE

OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 2026

1. OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:30pm.

Councilmember Fuller, Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Henderson were present.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Sy'Aer Jones, Delta Vista Middle School) Sy’Aer Jones led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Delta Update (Roger Mammon)
Roger Mammon provided the Delta update.

1.4 Diablo Water District Update (Dan Muelrath, General Manager) Dan Muelrath provided the Diablo Water District update.

1.5 BART Update (Mark Foley, Director)
Mark Foley provided the BART update.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public Comments were received by the following individuals: Bud Chaddock Public Comments were received by the following individuals and will be entered into the record: Mushda Faiez, Kevin Tyndall and Dawn Day

3. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. The public may 7 request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Mayor.

4.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Meeting Held March 24, 2026 (Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk)

4.2 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 5-26 Amending Section

1.5.209 and 1.5.210 of the Oakley Municipal Code Concerning Requests for Administrative Hearings Challenging Citations (Conrad Fromme, Chief Building Official)

4.3 Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Police Department Firearms No Longer Needed for Departmental Use (Paul Beard, Police Chief)

4.4 Adopt a Resolution Creating Zone 202 within the Oakley Special Police Tax Area Consisting of the Delta Pointe Plaza Project Located North of Newman Way and Journey Way (APN 037-160-047-9) (Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.5 Adopt a Resolution Approving an Assignment of the Current Five-Year Lease Agreement Between the City and Mulehead Growers, LLC to Brownstone Growers, LLC for City-Owned Property Located at 1785 Walnut Meadows Drive, Oakley (APN 037- 141-006), and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
Councilmember Fuller pulled item 4.1
It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: None RESULT: Motion carried (5-0)
Item 4.1
Councilmember Fuller mentioned he will vote no.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Shaw to approve the minutes as written. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES:

Fuller RESULT: Motion carried (4-1)

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

6. REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Adopt an Urgency Ordinance Imposing a Temporary Moratorium Prohibiting the Processing and Approval of New Data Center Land Use Applications within City Limits to Allow for Evaluation of the Public Health and Environmental Impacts and the Enactment of Further and Appropriate Regulations Concerning the Same (Derek Cole, City Attorney) City Attorney Derek Cole presented the report.
8 Questions were provided by Councilmember Fuller, Councilmember Williams and Councilmember Shaw; Mr. Cole responded.

Public comments were received by the following individuals: Debra Sidrian, David B, and Bud Chaddock.

Public comments were received by the following individuals and will be entered into the public record: Sue Ellen Mosely, Jaana Hansen.

Comments were provided by Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Councilmember Fuller, Vice Mayor Meadows and Hugh Henderson.

It was moved by Councilmember Shaw and seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows to adopt the urgency ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on new data center land use applications to allow for evaluation of the public health and environmental impacts; and the Council directed staff to return with an item to extend the temporary moratorium at the 12th City Council meeting, to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission in the summer, and to make an effort to provide information to consider a permanent ban by year-end. AYES: Fuller, Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams NOES: None RESULT:

Motion carried (5-0)

7. REPORTS

7.1 City Manager
(a) City Manager
(b) Business License Update
(c) Follow-up Memo
Assistant City Manager Danielle Navarro announced upcoming events for April 25, including the Day of Service and National Prescription Drug Take Back Day, with a collection bin located at the Police Department. She mentioned the Mercantile Market is scheduled for April 26 and noted that the business license update and a follow up memo from the Chief are attached to the agenda packet.

7.2 Oakley City Council / Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
Councilmember Shaw reported she attended a Tri Delta Transit meeting, a Policy Committee meeting, the Contra Costa Mayor’s Conference, and the East County Services Ground Breaking. She also attended Friday Night Bites, the swearing in of Sergeant Horn and had meetings and phone calls with constituents.

Councilmember Williams reported she attended a Tri Delta Transit meeting, a Policy Committee meeting, and the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference. Additionally, she attended the Chamber of Commerce Social and Board meeting and met with East County Challenger parents and Oasis Farms.
9 Vice Mayor Meadows reported he attended the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference. He also noted that the Transplan, East County Fee and Finance Authority, and the Highway 4 Bypass Authority meetings were cancelled.

Mayor Henderson reported he attended the East County Services Ground Breaking, the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference, and Friday Night Bites. Additionally, he noted attending the Mock City Council meeting with 3rd graders from Oakley Elementary School.
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
None

8. WORK SESSIONS
None

9. CLOSED SESSION
None

10. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.

Respectfully submitted
Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
10 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL HELD APRIL 14, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 8:39pm.

Councilmember Fuller, Councilmember Shaw, Councilmember Williams, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Mayor Henderson were present.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mayor Henderson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

4. CLOSED SESSION

4.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One potential case
Mayor Henderson announced the Closed Session item and mentioned the meeting will adjourn after the Closed Session.

Mayor Henderson, Vice Mayor Meadows and Councilmembers Williams and Shaw went into Closed Session. Councilmember Fuller recused himself.

5. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted.

Kim Snodgrass
City Clerk
11 MEMORANDUM
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 1
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Date: April 15, 2026
To: Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
Subject: Closed Session Report-Out Memo
For Consideration at the City Council Meeting of April 28, 2026 Background and Analysis
The City Council considered the following closed session item during its Special meeting held April 14, 2026:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:

One potential case
Direction was provided to staff. There was no reportable action.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Recommendation
Receive and file this report.

Attachments
None
12 STAFF REPORT

City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Re-Appointing Michael Krieg to the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees for a New FourYear Term Effective May 7, 2026 through May 6, 2030 Background and Analysis
Michael Krieg has served as the City of Oakley’s representative on the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees since 2012. His current fouryear term is set to expire on May 6, 2026. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Krieg has been a dedicated liaison, providing the City Council with consistent updates.

Mr. Krieg has expressed his interest in continuing his service to the Oakley community. According to the District’s bylaws, an open recruitment process is not required when an incumbent member seeks reappointment.

Given Mr. Krieg’s extensive experience, knowledge of the District, and his commitment to keeping the Council informed, staff recommends moving forward with the process of reappointing Mr. Krieg to a new four-year term.

Mr. Krieg has been invited to attend the meeting this evening should the Council have any questions or comments.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
Appointment to the Board is consistent with the City’s Community and Collaborative Partnerships Goal.

Fiscal Impact
None.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution re-appointing Michael Krieg to the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board for a new four-year term, effective May 7, 2026 through May 6, 2030.

Attachments

1. Proposed Resolution
Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
13 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY

RE-APPOINTING MICHAEL KRIEG AS TRUSTEE TO THE CONTRA COSTA

MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM (MAY 7, 2026 – MAY 6, 2030)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley that Michael Krieg is hereby reappointed as Trustee to the Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District Board for a 4- year term.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 28th day of April 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
___________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________ ___________________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
14 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 315 – Magnolia Park Playground Resurfacing and Retrofitting Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Background and Analysis
Magnolia Park was constructed in 2008 and has experienced significant wear due to age, heavy use, and repeated vandalism. The most recent act of vandalism involved a fire that damaged the 5-12 age play structure beyond repair, resulting in its permanent closure and reducing available play opportunities at the park.

The existing playground equipment and surfacing have reached the end of their useful life and no longer meet current safety and accessibility expectations. Replacement is necessary to restore functionality, improve safety, and ensure compliance with current accessibility standards.

The project includes removal of existing playground equipment, installation of new play structures for ages 2-5 and 5-12, and replacement of existing wood fiber and poured-in-place surfacing with DuraSafe rubber tile surfacing to improve durability, safety, and accessibility. The project also includes site preparation and installation.

The project will be procured through Sourcewell, a cooperative purchasing program that satisfies competitive bidding requirements. Use of Sourcewell allows the City to utilize pre-bid, competitively awarded contracts, reducing procurement time and providing competitive pricing. The City has successfully used this procurement method on prior projects.

Approval of this agreement will allow the City to replace the existing playground, improve safety, enhance accessibility, and restore the full use of the park for the community. This agreement includes demolition, materials, labor, freight, and tax.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety and Parks and Open Spaces goals.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
15 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us Fiscal Impact
This project is included in the FY 2025/26 budget with a total budget of $600,000. To date, no funds have been expended. The project is funded through LLAD Zone 3-25 (194). No additional funding is required to award this contract.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 315 – Magnolia Park Playground Resurfacing and Retrofitting Project in an amount not to exceed $499,911.51 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Vicinity Map

3. Landscape Structures Inc. Proposal
16 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NUMBER 315 – MAGNOLIA PARK

PLAYGROUND RESURFACING AND RETROFITTING PROJECT
WHEREAS, Magnolia Park was constructed in 2008 and has experienced wear and tear due to age, heavy use, and repeated vandalism, including a recent fire that damaged the 5-12 age play structure beyond repair and resulted in its closure; and WHEREAS, these conditions have created safety concerns and reduced usability of the park for the community; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will replace damaged and outdated playground equipment, install new play structures for ages 2-5 and 5-12, and replace the existing wood fiber and poured-in-place surfacing with rubber tile surfacing to improve safety, durability, and accessibility; and
WHEREAS, the City will utilize a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract, which satisfies competitive bidding requirements and provides competitively awarded pricing; and
WHEREAS, this project is included in the FY 2025/26 budget with a total budget of $600,000, and is funded through LLAD Zone 3-25 (194), with no additional funding required.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the proposal attached as Exhibit A with Landscape Structures, Inc. for CIP 315 - Magnolia Park Playground Resurfacing and Retrofitting Project to be approved for an amount not to exceed $499,911.51, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 28th day of April 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
17 Vicinity Map - Magnolia Park
Renovation Area
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29

STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 317 - Novarina Park Playground Expansion and Resurfacing Project and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

Background and Analysis
Novarina Park was constructed in 2006 and includes an existing playground with an older play structure, poured-in-place surfacing, and a sand play area with a dyno dig feature.

Over time, the playground has experienced wear due to age, vandalism, and regular use.

While the existing structure remains operational, it is outdated, does not function as intended in several areas, and no longer meets current expectations for accessibility and inclusive play.

The sand play area presents ongoing maintenance and safety challenges. Sand surfaces are difficult to keep free of debris and contaminants, including broken glass and other foreign materials, which can become concealed beneath the surface and are not readily visible during routine inspection. Sand also migrates into adjacent play areas and contributes to increased wear on playground surfacing materials. Despite routine maintenance, these conditions cannot be fully mitigated and continue to present a safety concern for park users.

The proposed project will remove the existing playground equipment and sand play area and replace them with a new play structure designed for ages 5-12, including the addition of swings, expanded play area, and upgraded surfacing to improve safety, durability, and accessibility.

The project will be procured through Sourcewell, a cooperative purchasing program that satisfies competitive bidding requirements and provides competitively awarded pricing.

The City has successfully used this procurement method on prior projects.

Approval of this agreement will allow the City to replace outdated equipment, improve safety, enhance accessibility, and provide a more functional and maintainable play environment. This agreement includes demolition, materials, labor, freight, and tax.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
30 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+Community Health and Safety and Parks and Open Spaces goals.

Fiscal Impact
This project is included in the FY 2025/26 budget with a total budget of $600,000. To date, no funds have been expended. The project is funded through the LLAD Zone 3-25 (194).

No additional funding is required to award this contract.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Sourcewell Proposal/Agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Landscape Structures, Inc. for Capital Improvement Project No. 317 – Novarina Park Playground Expansion and Resurfacing Project in an amount not to exceed $451,794.23.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Vicinity Map

3. Landscape Structures, Inc. Proposal
31 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH LANSCAPE STRUCTURES, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) NUMBER 317 – NOVARINA PARK

PLAYGROUND EXPANSION AND RESURFACING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Novarina Park playground was constructed in 2006 and includes aging equipment and a sand play area that presents ongoing maintenance and safety challenges, including the potential for debris and hazardous materials to become concealed beneath the surface; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will remove the existing playground equipment and sand play structure designed for ages 5-12, including the addition of swings, expanded play area, and upgraded surfacing to improve safety, durability, and accessibility; and WHEREAS, the City will utilize a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract that satisfies competitive bidding requirements and provides competitively awarded pricing; and
WHEREAS, this project is included in the FY 2025/26 budget with a total budget of $600,000. To date, no funds have been expended. The project is funded through LLAD Zone 3-25 (194), and no additional funding is required to award this contract.

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the proposal attached as Exhibit A with Landscape Structures, Inc. for CIP 317 - Novarina Park Playground Expansion and Resurfacing Project is hereby approved in an amount not to exceed $451,794.23, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 28th day of April 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTION:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
32 Vicinity Map - Novarina Park
Renovation
Area
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleygov.com DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Agreement with Live Oak Investors, LLC for “Agreement of Property Owner for Provision of Landscaping in the Public Right of Way” for Live Oak Industrial Park and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
Background and Analysis
On June 11, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-24 approving the Live Oak Industrial Park Tentative Map (TM 09-23) (Subdivision 9686) and Design Review (DR 07-23) to subdivide approximately 4.66 acres into four Parcels, as well as, for condominium purposes for the proposed 16 warehouse tenant spaces and eight 8,000-square-foot warehouse buildings. Each warehouse building includes two suites consisting of 3,775 square feet of warehouse space, an office, and bathroom. This project site is located at 5400 Live Oak Avenue and is zoned LI (Light Industrial) District. (APN 037-100-065).

The owner, Live Oak Investors, LLC, must enter into an agreement with the City to maintain landscaping within the project right-of-way fronting the project at the owner’s expense to a standard acceptable and agreed upon by the City.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community and Economic Development Goals.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with the agreement since all inspection, operations, and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the property owner.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the “Agreement of Property Owner for Provision of Landscaping in the Public Right of Way” for DR 07-23 Live Oak Industrial Park and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
44 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleygov.com Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Maintenance Map
3) Agreement of Property Owner for Provision of Landscaping in the Public Right of Way
45 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH LIVE OAK INVESTORS, LLC (APN 037-100-065) FOR “AGREEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNER FOR

PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL” FOR LIVE OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 90-24 approving the Live Oak Industrial Park Tentative Map (TM 09-23) and Design Review (DR 04-21) for the property located at 5400 Live Oak Avenue (APN 037- 100-065); and
WHEREAS, the property owner, Live Oak Investors, LLC, is required to execute this agreement to maintain the frontage right of way landscaping adjacent to the site at the owner’s expense; and
WHEREAS, execution of this agreement will satisfy the requirement for the owner to maintain the frontage landscape to a standard acceptable to the City; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the “Agreement of Property Owner for Provision of Landscaping in the Public Right of Way” for the Live Oak Industrial Park in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley on this 28th day of April 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:

_______________________
Hugh Henderson, Mayor
ATTEST:
______
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
46 LIV
E
O
A
K
AV
E

AGATA WY
±
CITY OF OAKLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-2 TAX ZONE 16 (LIVE OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK)

MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT MAP
0 100 200
Feet
Legend
CFD No. 2015-2 Tax Zone 16
Bioretention Basin (Inspections Only)
Landscaping*
Landscaping (Property Owner Maintained)
Parcel Lines
*Landscaping in public right-of-way will be
maintained by the property owner to be
"In-Compliance".
47

Page 1 of 7 ends

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL
TO:

City of Oakley
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 9461
Record without fee subject to
Government Code 6103
APN 037-100-065 Space above this line for Recorder’s Use

AGREEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNER FOR PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN

THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project Name

THIS AGREEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNER FOR PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (this “Landscaping Agreement”) is dated as of April 24, 2026 and evidences the agreement by and between (i) Live Oak Investors, LLC (the "Property Owner"), as the owner of certain property located on 5350 Live Oak Avenue, Oakley, California and Assessor’s Parcel Number 037-100- 065 within the City of Oakley, County of Contra Costa, which property that is the subject of this Landscaping Agreement (the “Property”) and (ii) the CITY OF OAKLEY, a municipal corporation and general law city of the State of California (the “City”).

THE PROPERTY OWNER AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CITY HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Obligations of Property Owner:
(a) This Landscaping Agreement is entered into between the parties pursuant to maintenance of the required landscaping per Conditions of Approval of Resolution 90-24 of those certain land use entitlements as described in Resolution No. 90-24 of the Oakley City Council, and other applicable law, for the purpose of providing for the private maintenance and operation of certain landscaping within agreed upon areas of the public right of way. Exhibit “A” as attached hereto and incorporated herein illustrates the Property and the areas of the public right of way that are the subject of this Landscaping Agreement which are intended to be maintained by the Property Owner (the “Property Owner Landscaping Areas”).
(b) Property Owner shall comply with the requirements of this Landscaping Agreement, including the landscape maintenance requirements described in Section 2. Upon a default by the Property Owner of any material obligation incurred pursuant to this Landscaping Agreement or termination of this Landscaping Agreement by the City, the Property Owner shall be obligated to reimburse City for costs incurred by the City for the default of the Property Owner as to the Property Owner Maintenance Areas. Such reimbursement to the City shall be in an amount to fully reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City resulting from the default by the Property Owner including the costs of the annual maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and administration and collection of reimbursement during the City fiscal year in which the default occurs and in each subsequent City fiscal year. Such costs shall be considered a debt to the City and shall constitute a lien or, in the alternative, a special assessment against the Property. 48

Page 2 of 7 ends

Section 2. Landscape Maintenance.

The Property Owner shall be required to perform landscape maintenance and servicing within the Property Owner Landscaping Areas. As used herein, the words "maintenance and servicing" mean and refer to the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation of the landscaping including providing for the growth, health, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing or treating for disease or injury, the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste and the cleaning, sandblasting and painting of walls and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti and costs reasonably incidental thereto.

Section 3. Default by Owner; Termination by City.

The City shall have the right to terminate this Landscaping Agreement in the event the Property Owner shall have failed to perform the maintenance or the furnishing of services described in Section 2 above within the Property Owner Maintenance Areas or any portion thereof following at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice from the City Engineer to the Property Owner ordering the Property Owner to perform the maintenance or furnishing of the services described in such notice as required by this Landscaping Agreement. Upon the expiration of such 30-day notice and cure period, in the event the Property Owner has not cured the default, the City Engineer shall have the right at any time thereafter to terminate this Landscaping Agreement effective upon the receipt of notice of termination by the Property Owner (as provided in Section 5(b) herein). The City Engineer shall also have the right to terminate this Landscaping Agreement in the event the Property Owner shall have failed to perform the maintenance or furnishing of the services described in Section 2 within the Property Owner Maintenance Areas or any portion thereof which results in a hazardous safety situation in the professional opinion of the City Engineer, following at least 48 hours prior written notice to the Property Owner to completely cure said hazardous safety situation, and the Property Owner has failed to so completely cure (or to have commenced such cure with diligent efforts to cure) upon the expiration of such 48-hour notice and cure period.

Any termination of this Landscaping Agreement may be appealed by the Property Owner to the City Manager, who shall be presented with the facts and circumstances of any alleged default together with any recommendations for the termination of this Landscaping Agreement. Upon the termination of this Landscaping Agreement by the City Engineer, the City shall thereupon undertake the regular periodic landscape maintenance and seek collection of the annual landscape maintenance amount against the Property in the same manner described above in Section 1(b).

Section 4. Reserved.

Section 5. Notices and Communications Between the Parties. (a) Any and all notices, demands or communications submitted by either party to another party pursuant to or as required by this Landscaping Agreement shall be proper if in writing and dispatched by messenger for immediate personal delivery, or by registered or certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or transmitted by FAX and confirmed by the sender by First Class United States Mail postage prepaid or by personal delivery and in each case, addressed to the principal office of the parties, as applicable, as designated below.

To City:
49

Page 3 of 7 ends

Public Works Director
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
To Live Oak Investors, LLC:
130 Julia Loop
Danville, CA 94506
(b) Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate as provided in this Section.

Any such notice, demand or communication shall be deemed to be received by the addressee, regardless of whether or when any return receipt is received by the sender on the date set forth on such return receipt, on the day that it is dispatched by messenger for immediate personal delivery, the date sent by FAX and confirmed by First Class United States Mail or two (2) calendar days after it is placed in the United States Mail or personal delivery as heretofore provided. (c) Either party may change its address for notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party not less than ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such address change. If a party has not provided an address for notice, any other party may deliver notice to such party at the address shown as the address for the owner of the property in question in the county tax records.

Section 6. Acceptance of Assessment Lien.

The Property Owner for itself and its successors and assigns hereby acknowledges and consents to the collection of any special assessments as may hereafter be assessed by the City under either Section 1(b) or Section 3, at the same time and in the same manner as County of Contra Costa general property taxes are collected against real property and all the laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County of Contra Costa property taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of any such assessments. Nothing shall prevent the City from accelerating the foreclosure of any assessment lien and independently pursuing judicial remedies for the enforcement of any assessment lien in the manner as may be available to the City pursuant to the Municipal Code or other applicable California law.

Section 7. Term of Agreement.

This Landscaping Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless terminated as permitted in this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 8. City Confirmation.

On request from time-to-time of the Property Owner, the City Engineer shall confirm in writing, addressed as requested by the Property Owner, the existence of this Landscaping Agreement and the existence or non-existence of any defaults hereunder then known to the City Engineer. 50

Page 4 of 7 ends

Section 9. Non-discrimination.

In performing this Landscaping Agreement, Property Owner shall not engage in, nor permit its agents to engage in, discrimination in employment of persons because of their race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual gender or sexual orientation, except as permitted pursuant to Section 12940 of the Government Code.

Violation of this provision may result in the imposition of penalties referred to in Labor Code, Section 1735.

Section 10. Entire Agreement Amendment and Termination.

This Maintenance Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to any matter referenced herein and supersedes any and all other prior writings and oral negotiations.

The terms of this Landscaping Agreement shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any other contract document appurtenant hereto, including exhibits to this Landscaping Agreement.

This Landscaping Agreement may be amended or terminated only by written agreement, signed by the parties in interest at the time of such amendment or termination, except as also provided in Section 3, regarding termination.

Section 11. Attorneys’ Fees.

In the event that litigation is brought by any party in connection with this Landscaping Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the opposing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the prevailing party in the exercise of any of its rights or remedies hereunder or the enforcement of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions hereof. The costs, salary and expenses of the City Attorney and members of his or her office in connection with that action, shall be considered as “attorneys’ fees” for the purposes of this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 12. Governing Law.

This Landscaping Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California without giving effect to that body of laws pertaining to conflict of laws. In the event of any legal action to enforce or interpret this Landscaping Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the sole and exclusive venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction located in Contra Costa County, California.

Section 13. Indemnification and Hold Harmless.

Property Owner shall protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, and employees from any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, including attorneys' fees, damage to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons or damages of any nature including, but not limited to, all civil claims or workers' compensation claims, arising out of or in any way connected with the acts, errors or omissions of Property Owner, its employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Landscaping Agreement. 51

Page 5 of 7 ends

Section 14. No Third Party Beneficiary Rights.

This Landscaping Agreement is entered into for the sole benefit of City and Property Owner and no other parties are intended to be direct or incidental beneficiaries of this Landscaping Agreement and no third party shall have any right in, under or to this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 15. Headings.

Paragraphs and subparagraph headings contained in this Landscaping Agreement are included solely for convenience and are not intended to modify, explain or to be a full or accurate description of the content thereof and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 16. Construction.

The parties have participated jointly in the negotiation and drafting of this Landscaping Agreement. In the event an ambiguity or question of intent or interpretation arises with respect to this Landscaping Agreement, this Landscaping Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties and in accordance with its fair meaning. There shall be no presumption or burden of proof favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 17. Waiver.

The delay or failure of either party at any time to require performance or compliance by the other of party of its obligations or agreements shall in no way be deemed a waiver of those rights to require such performance or compliance. No waiver of any provision of this Landscaping Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. The waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any occurrence or event shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy with respect to any other occurrence or event, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver.

Section 18. Severability.

Every provision of this Landscaping Agreement is and shall be construed to be a separate and independent covenant. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if any provision of this Landscaping Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, then the remainder of this Landscaping Agreement shall not be affected and shall be enforced to the extent permitted by law and the parties shall negotiate in good faith for such amendments to this Landscaping Agreement as may be necessary to achieve its intent, notwithstanding such invalidity or unenforceability.

Section 19. Counterparts.

This Landscaping Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one agreement.
52

Page 6 of 7 ends

Section 20. Corporate Authority.

The persons executing this Landscaping Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Landscaping Agreement on behalf of said parties and that by doing so, the parties hereto are formally bound to the provisions of this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 21. Covenant running with the Land.

The provisions of this Landscaping Agreement shall run with the Property and any portion thereof or interest therein, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of all persons having or acquiring any interest in the Property or any portion thereof, and their respective successive owners and assigns.

Section 22. Recording.

The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Landscaping Agreement to be recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, California, within ten days following the execution of this Landscaping Agreement.

Section 23. Consent.
[Lender] on behalf of itself and certain other lenders (collectively, the "Lenders''), will consent to this Landscaping Agreement and the rights created hereunder and will subordinate all liens and security interests against the Property securing any and all indebtedness owed to Lenders, to this Landscaping Agreement and to all rights created hereunder as evidenced by the Consent and Subordination attached hereto.
[Signatures Follow On Next Page]
53

Page 7 of 7 ends

AGREEMENT OF PROPERTY OWNER FOR PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN

THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

CITY OF OAKLEY OWNER
_____________________________ __________________________________ Joshua McMurray, City Manager Live Oak Investors, LLC, Property Owner Colt Alvernaz, Managing Member
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Derek P. Cole, City Attorney
54 State of California
County of Contra Costa
On_______________, before me, ____________________, Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Signature________________________
Signature of Notary Public
A Notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
55 [Acknowledgement]
56 [Exhibit A]
57 STAFF REPORT
1 City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Billilee Saengchalern, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Agreement with Live Oak Investors, LLC (APN 037-100-065) for “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” for DR 07- 23 Live Oak Industrial Park Located at 5400 Live Oak and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement
Background and Analysis
The installation of the Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures (BMP’s) for the DR 07-23 Live Oak Industrial Park was constructed with the improvements associated with the project. The City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requires proper operation and maintenance of the permanent BMP’s by the respective property owners. The “Stormwater Management Facility Operation and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” memorializes the owner’s maintenance, operations and inspection obligation under the City’s Ordinance and the approved plans.

Under the Contra Costa Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit, projects “deemed complete” after February 15, 2005, are to comply with the provisions of the Permit. The City adopted an Ordinance, as required by the Permit, to enable this activity within the City of Oakley. A requirement of the permit is that each property implement stormwater treatment devices, fund the perpetual maintenance of those devices, and enter into an agreement with the City stating that the property owner will maintain the devices, grant a right of entry to City staff for inspections, and agree to pay the cost of City inspections.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ for Community Health and Safety Goal.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with the agreement since all inspection, operations, and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the property owners.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” for DR Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
58 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
07-23 Live Oak Industrial Park located at 5400 Live Oak Avenue and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City.

Attachments
1) Resolution
2) Maintenance Map
3) “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” for DR 07-23 Live Oak Industrial Park 59 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH LIVE OAK INVESTORS, LLC (APN 037-100-065) FOR “STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND RIGHT OF ENTRY” FOR DR 07-23 LIVE OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK LOCATED AT 5400 LIVE OAK

AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance requires proper operation and maintenance of the Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures installed for the Live Oak Industrial Park Project; and
WHEREAS, the “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” memorializes the owner’s maintenance, operations, and inspection obligations under the City’s Ordinance and the approved plans; and WHEREAS, the installation of the Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures for the Live Oak Industrial Park project will be consistent with the approved improvement plans; and
WHEREAS, Live Oak Investors, LLC, the current owner of the parcel described in Exhibit A, desires to execute the “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry”; and
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oakley that the “Stormwater Management Facility Operations and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry” for the Live Oak Industrial Park project in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley on this 28th day of April 2026 by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:
60 Resolution No. XX-26 Page 2
APPROVED:

_______________________
ATTEST: Hugh Henderson, Mayor
______
Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk Date
61 LIV
E
O
A
K
AV
E

AGATA WY
±
CITY OF OAKLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2015-2 TAX ZONE 16 (LIVE OAK INDUSTRIAL PARK)

CITY OF OAKLEY
Return to: CITY OF OAKLEY
City Clerk
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561
______________________________________________________________________________

Document Title

CITY OF OAKLEY

COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND,

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY OPERATIONS

AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND RIGHT OF ENTRY
(Subdivisions)
PROJECT: Live Oak Industrial Park
OWNERS NAMES: Live Oak Investors, LLC
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 037-100-065
63 2

COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND,

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,

AND RIGHT OF ENTRY
This Covenant Running with the Land, Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 24th day of April, 2026, by and between Live Oak Investors, LLC, (hereinafter referred to as "Property Owner") and The City of Oakley, a municipal corporation ("City").

The following terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings specified below:

DEFINITIONS
Lot: The term "Lot" shall mean Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, and Parcel A as shown on the Map of the Property.

Map: The term "Map" shall mean the final map of Subdivision 9686 filed of record on March 5, 2026 in Book 561 of Maps at pages 45 through 47, inclusive in the Official Records of the Contra Costa County Recorder.

Maintain: The term "Maintain" or "Maintained" shall mean taking all actions reasonably necessary to keep the Stormwater Facility in first class operation, condition and repair, which actions include but are not limited to regular inspections, painting, cleaning, maintenance, refinishing, repairing, replacing and reconstructing the Stormwater Facility, and in the case of landscaping, plant replacement, mulch replacement, irrigating, trimming mowing, and fertilizing the landscaping. The term shall also include the routine maintenance, and the annual inspection and reporting described in the Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan, and the payment of any applicable City fees.

NPDES Permit: The term "NPDES Permit" shall mean the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0029912 (issued to the City of Oakley) as amended, and as may be superseded by subsequent NPDES permits that are reissued from time to time.

Ordinance: The term "Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 11 of Title 6 of the City of Oakley Municipal Code (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control), as may be amended from time to time.

Property Owner: The term "Property Owner" and "Property Owners" shall mean Live Oak Investors, LLC and all heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of Live Oak Investors, LLC in the real property shown on the Map, it being the intent of the parties hereto that the obligations undertaken in this Agreement, as provided in Civil Code section 1468, run with the Lots shown on the Map and constitute a lien against the Lots.
64 3
Property: The term "Property" shall mean that that certain real property located at 5400 Live Oak Avenue, and more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and hereby incorporated herein by reference.

Plan: The term "Plan" or "Operation and Maintenance Plan" means the City-approved Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan prepared by Alvernaz Consulting and approved by the City Engineer in writing, which may be subsequently modified from time to time with City Engineer's written approval.

Stormwater Facility: The term "Stormwater Facility" means the permanent stormwater management facilities located and constructed on Parcel A of the Property. All of Parcel A is part of the Stormwater Facility.

RECITALS
This Agreement is made and entered into with reference to the following facts:

A. The Property Owner is the owner of the real property shown on the Map and more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A.

B. The City is the owner of Live Oak Avenue and its storm drains that are adjacent to the Property, and the City is required to ensure that stormwater run-off from the Property into its storm drains meets the requirements of its NPDES Permit.

C. To meet its obligations under its NPDES Permit the City has required the Property Owner to construct the Stormwater Facility on Parcel A of the Property.

D. To meet its obligations under its NPDES Permit the City has approved the Property Owner's Operation and Maintenance Plan for the Stormwater Facility.

E. To meet its obligations under its NPDES Permit the City's Ordinance requires proper operation and maintenance in perpetuity of the Stormwater Facility constructed on the Property.

F. The Plan includes an annual inspection and reporting requirement for the Stormwater Facility constructed on the Property.

G. This Agreement memorializes the Property Owners' maintenance, operations, and inspection obligations under the City’s Ordinance, the City's NPDES Permit and the Plan.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and the following terms and conditions, the parties hereto agree as follows:
65 4
SECTION 1
Responsibility for Operation and Maintenance: No portion of the Stormwater Facility (Parcel A) may be altered, in any way, by a Property Owner without the prior written consent of the City Engineer of the City of Oakley. The Property Owners of Lots 1 through 4, inclusive, shall contribute equally to the costs to Maintain the Stormwater Facility (Parcel A) in first class operating condition, and in compliance with all applicable state, county and city laws and regulations except that all costs of Maintaining the Stormwater Facility which are the result of the negligent act or willful action of a Property Owner or the Property Owners invitees shall be borne by that Property Owner. Applicable regulations include, but are not limited to, the City-approved Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan, and the provisions of the Ordinance, as they may be amended from time to time.

The Property Owner shall engage a landscape contractor or other licensed contractor to Maintain the Stormwater Facility. The City Engineer, in her or his sole absolute discretion, may approve an alternate method for the maintenance of the Stormwater Facility. The City Engineer, also in her or his sole absolute discretion, may revoke the approval of a previously approved alternate method for the maintenance of the Stormwater Facility.

If a dispute should arise between the Property Owners of the Lots as with respect to the necessity for or standard of maintenance for the Stormwater Facility, the contractor(s) to be engaged to perform any repair or maintenance work, or any other matters pertaining to the operation or maintenance of the Stormwater Facility the dispute shall be submitted to the City Engineer for arbitration, and the decision of the City Engineer shall be final. If any Property Owner refuses to comply with the decision of the City Engineer, the other Property Owners may proceed to enforce the decision in an action at law.

SECTION 2
Inspection by Property Owner: The Property Owners shall cause their contractor to conduct annual inspections during the month of September of each year. The annual inspection report shall include completion of the checklist described in the approved Operation and Maintenance Plan. The Property Owners or their contractor must submit the inspection report to the City Engineer within 30 days after the annual inspection. A Management and/or Inspection fee established in the City's standard fee schedule shall accompany the annual inspection report.

SECTION 3
Right of Entry and Stormwater Facility Inspection by the City: The Property Owners hereby grant permission to the City, its authorized agents and employees, and Ironhouse Sanitary District, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, County Environmental Health Department, the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to enter Parcel A, and to inspect the Stormwater Facility whenever any of the forgoing entities deems necessary to enforce provisions of the City's Ordinance. These entities may enter the premises at any reasonable time to inspect the Stormwater Facility's operation and maintenance, to inspect and copy records related to compliance with stormwater regulations, and to collect samples and take measurements. Whenever possible, these entities will provide notice prior to entry. 66 5
SECTION 4
Failure to Perform Required Stormwater Facility Repairs or Maintenance by the Property Owner: If the Property Owners or their successors fail to Maintain the Stormwater Facility in good working order and in accordance with the approved Plan and the City’s Ordinance, the City, with prior notice, may enter the Parcel A to return the Stormwater Facility to good working order. The City is under no obligation to Maintain or repair the Stormwater Facility, and this Agreement may not be construed to impose any such obligation on the City. If the City, under this section takes any action to return the Stormwater Facility to good working order, the Property Owners shall reimburse the City for all the costs incurred by the City, including administrative costs. The City will provide the Property Owners with an itemized invoice of the City’s costs and the Property Owners will have 30 days to pay the invoice. If the Property Owners fails to pay the invoice within 30 days, the City may secure a lien against the real property of the Property Owners in the amount of such costs. In addition the City may make the cost of abatement of the nuisance caused by the failure to Maintain the Stormwater Facility a special assessment against the Property that may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary municipal taxes are collected as provided in Government Code section 38773.5. This Section 4 does not prohibit the City from pursuing other legal recourse against the Property Owners.

SECTION 5
Indemnity: The Property Owners agree to defend, indemnify and holds harmless the City, its officials, employees and its authorized agents from any and all damages, accidents, casualties, occurrences, claims, penalties or fines which might arise or be asserted against the City and which are in any way connected with the construction, operation, presence, existence or maintenance of the Stormwater Facility by the Property Owners, or from any personal injury or property damage that may result from the City or other public entities entering the Property under Section 3 or 4.

SECTION 6
Successors and Assigns: The covenants of the Property Owner set forth in numbered Sections 1 through 5 above shall run with the land, and the burdens thereof shall be binding upon each and every part of the Property and upon the Property Owner, its successors and assigns in ownership (or any interest therein), for the benefit of Live Oak Avenue and its storm drains and each and every part thereof and said covenants shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the City, its successors and assigns in ownership of each and every part of the Street and storm drains.

SECTION 7
Severability: Invalidation of any one of the provisions of this Agreement shall in no way effect any other provisions and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 67 6
Recommended for approval: City of Oakley:
____________________________________ ______________________________ Billilee Saengchalern, City Engineer Joshua McMurray, City Manager Reviewed by: Attest:
____________________________________ ______________________________ Derek Cole, City Attorney Kim Snodgrass, City Clerk
Property Owners:
____________________________________
Live Oak Investors, LLC
Colt Alvernaz, Managing Member
Attachments: Acknowledgements
Exhibit A
68 7
State of California
County of Contra Costa
On_______________, before me, ____________________, Notary Public, personally appeared _______________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of
the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

EXHIBIT A
Legal description
70 STAFF REPORT

CITY HALL | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
DATE: April 28, 2026
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Jose Cortez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 (TM 02-23) – Adoption of a Resolution by the City Council Regarding an Application Requesting Approval of a Tentative Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (APNs 033-140-020, 033-140-021, and 033-140-028) Summary
This is an application by Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. (Jeff Schroeder) ("Applicant") requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 02-23) to subdivide approximately

50.5 acres into 176 single-family residential lots, a 2.4-acre park, a 2.7-acre detention basin, a 1.1-acre, 75-foot wide creek setback, and other associated improvements ("Project"). The applicant states a Design Review application, including landscaping and architecture, will be submitted separately at a later date. The Vesting Tentative Map has been assigned number 9647. The project is located on the west side of Sellers Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles north of Delta Road and 1 mile south of East Cypress Road, located southwest of the intersection of Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Road. The project site is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District which is associated with a previously approved and now expired tentative map (8973) the project application was deemed complete per Government Code section 65920 et. Seq.

Background
On November 28th, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 30-05 approving an application to rezone approximately 50 acres from A-2 to P-1 in conjunction with a vesting tentative map (Resolution No. 117-05), that was intended to create a 176-lot subdivision. The previous entitlements also approved a tree permit to remove protected trees, design review for eight models, and the Negative Declaration. In 2006, the site was graded in preparation for the project development, however the residential project did not move forward with vertical development, and the approved Tentative Map has since expired. The applicant submitted a new application for a Vesting Tentative map in 2023. While the project remained predominantly similar to what was previously approved, the applicant revised their project to comply with regulations and standards at the time of review prompting modifications to the project.

Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
71 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 2 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Figure 1: General Plan Designation
General Plan
The project site has
two General Plan
designations: RL
(Residential Low)
and RV
(Residential Very
Low). The RL land
use designation
provides for
moderate density,
single-family
residential
development and allows for a density range of 2.3 to 3.8 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ac). The RV land use designation provides for traditional, large-lot single-family residential development, which maintains the low density typical of a large-lot suburban development, and allows for a density range of 0.8 to 2.3 du/ac. Based on

Zoning
The project site was previously designated A-2 (General Agriculture), in 2005 the City Council of the City of Oakley approved a rezone to P-1 (Planned Unit Development).

The P-1 zoning designation allows for flexibility, defers to the General Plan for density, and is normally tied to a specific development project and often contains different development regulations, such as minimum lot sizes and/or required yard setbacks from those found in the conventional zoning districts. They are typically found as part of a large-scale development, an infill development, or a General Plan special area of concern. An existing P-1 District covers the current project site. The plan proposes two different typical lot sizes (60' X 100' - 6,000 SF MIN, and 70' X 110' - 7,500 SF MIN).
72 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 3 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 2: Project Site and Existing Conditions
The project is
located South of the
Kings Canyon Way
and the Sierra Trail
Road intersection
and consists of
three parcels (APNs
033-140-020, 033-
140-021, and 033-
140-028). The site is
also bounded by
Sellers Avenue to the
east, the east side of
which is also the City limit line at the project location, and the Marsh Creek Trail to the west.

The project site is primarily undeveloped and was graded in 2006. The northern portion of the project site is undeveloped and graded, and the southern portion of the site contains the building foundations and remnants of a demolished single-family residence and ancillary structures which were previously located in the southeast corner. The site also contains two palm trees located in the northwest corner of the site. Surrounding existing uses include single-family residences to the north; single-family residences and agricultural uses to the east across Sellers Avenue (located in unincorporated Contra Costa County), as well as to the south; and a single-family residential neighborhood to the west. Marsh Creek and the associated Marsh Creek Regional Trail are located along the western project site boundary between the project site and the residences. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as RL and RV, and the site is zoned P-1.

Project Description
The Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project would subdivide the project site into 176 singlefamily residential lots. On-site improvements would include approximately one acre of open space within a 75-foot setback from Marsh Creek, a 2.43-acre park in the northwest corner of the project site, and a 2.7-acre stormwater detention basin in the northeast corner of the site. An internal roadway network would connect to existing roadways to provide site access, including Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way to the north of the site and Sellers Avenue to the east. Each lot would range in size from 6,000 square feet (sf) to 16,182 sf, and utility improvements would be included on-site and within the surrounding roadways. Frontage improvements would include a 26-foot-wide roadway dedication along the Sellers Avenue frontage to the east. The project would include removal of the existing remnant foundations and on-site trees would be removed. The proposed project would require approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.
73 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 4 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Vesting Tentative Map
Figure 3: VTM
The Vesting Tentative Map would result in a subdivision of a total of 179 lots comprised of 176 single-family residential lots, Parcels A, B, and C, as well as an internal roadway network that would connect to the surrounding roadways. The single-family lots would range in size from 6,000 sf to 16,182 sf. Parcel A would function as a setback parcel adjacent to Marsh Creek. It serves the purpose of creating a 75-foot-wide buffer from the top of bank along the east side of Marsh Creek, which is a requirement of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. Parcel B would be reserved in the northwestern corner of the project site for the future 2.43-acre park that would be combined with the 1.09-acre parcel to the north to form a single park, and Parcel C would include the 2.7-acre stormwater detention basin in the northeast corner of the project site. The three parcels would be dedicated to the City on the Final Map. As proposed, the gross density (including all area before right of way dedication, parks, landscaping, etc.) would be approximately 3.5 du/ac.

Analysis
The site is physically suitable for the project in that it is accessible, not physically constrained other than the reduction in net developable acres due to frontage right of way dedication and onsite stormwater detention and treatment, and Marsh Creek buffer, is similar to surrounding residentially developed projects, and it is also able to accommodate the proposed density of development in a manner consistent with the 74 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 5 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
underlying land use designations. The subdivision is not expected to result in any serious public health problems. Public improvements are proposed and conditioned to occur as a result of the subdivision, which is a benefit to the public and surrounding residents and property owners of the vicinity. One of those improvements would be the Sellers Avenue Roadway widening, that would result in a 76-foot right of way with full improvements along the project’s frontage.

Site Access and Circulation
An internal roadway system would be constructed throughout the project site to provide access to each unit. The internal roadways would be within a 56-foot right-ofway (ROW) and would include a five-foot sidewalk, five-foot landscape strip, eight-foot parking, and a 10-foot travel lane in each direction. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from Kings Canyon Lane and Sierra Trail Road north of the project site which would also connect the project to the subdivision to the north, and Sellers Avenue to the east. The other internal roadways would be stubbed to the south and west of the project site. The stubbed out roads could potentially be designed into the undeveloped and existing properties along the south at a future date.

Figure 4:Typical Street
Landscaping
As part of the proposed project, the two on-site palm trees would be removed, and landscaping improvements would be provided throughout the project site. A variety of trees and shrubs would be provided along the internal roadways, as well as the frontage of the residential lots. A six-foot landscape privacy wall would be included 75 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 6 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
along the eastern boundary of the site to separate the proposed residences from Sellers Avenue, design of site walls have not been reviewed for compliance with Residential Design guidelines and future walls will have to comply with the standards at time of submittal. All landscaping would comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

Utilities
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Diablo Water District (DWD). The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch water lines throughout the project site within the internal roadway network, and would connect to the existing water main in Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Road. Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site within the internal roadway network, and would ultimately connect to the existing sanitary sewer system in Sellers Avenue. Runoff from the new impervious surfaces on the project site would be collected in curbs, gutters, and a new network of 15- to 24-inch stormwater lines throughout the site.

Stormwater would be directed towards the 2.7-acre detention area located on Parcel C. Following treatment, the runoff would be discharged into the City’s stormwater main in Sierra Trail Road.

Frontage Improvements
The proposed project would include frontage improvements within a 0.37-acre area along Sellers Avenue to the east, primarily comprised of a 26-foot-wide roadway widening and dedication (see Figure 5). The roadway widening area would include two six-foot-wide landscaping areas on either side of a six-foot-wide sidewalk, an eightfoot-wide bicycle lane, and two approximately 12-foot-wide travel lanes. The proposed residences along the eastern site boundary (Lots 103 through 109) would be separated from the frontage improvement area by a landscape privacy wall. In addition, the proposed frontage improvements would include eight feet of space as a buffer between the easternmost landscaping area and the existing roadway. It should be noted that the existing roadway includes a five-foot buffer. Following construction of the frontage improvements, the total roadway buffer would be 13 feet wide. 76 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 7 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Figure 5: Frontage Improvements

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
On March 3,2026 a public hearing on the Stonecreek Subdivision was held by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting. City Staff presented the staff report after which the Planning Commission asked clarifying questions related to future development, and potential risks to the neighborhood’s fire safety. One public comments was received on the item, which included clarifying questions related to timing, lighting, park locations, and schools. After deliberations, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 6-26 recommending the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 (TM 02-23), and adopt the IS/MND and the MMRP, as conditioned.

Environmental Review
CEQA Compliance
An Initial Study (“IS”) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Raney Planning and Management conducted the CEQA analysis survey on behalf of the City of Oakley. The Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt an MND and IS was circulated for public review and comment from October 7, 2024 through November 5, 2024.

Following the public review period, staff-initiated changes resulted in substantial revisions to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. Specifically, the changes resulted in a new potentially significant impact related to VMT and a new mitigation measure under question XVII-b to reduce the newly identified impact to a less-thansignificant level (Mitigation Measure XVII-1). Thus, consistent with CEQA Section 15073.5, the IS/MND was revised and supersedes the previously circulated version. 77 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 8 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Sections VIII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), and XVII (Transportation) were modified to reflect the new Mitigation Measures found in the VMT Analysis Memorandum.

A Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to Adopt was circulated for public review and comment from September 15, 2025, through October 15, 2025. Following the public review period, staff received one comment letter from California Geologic Energy Management Division or CalGEM related to an abandoned gas-well. ENGEO Inc. provided a response on behalf of the applicant stating that the on-site well did not produce natural gas and is considered a “dry” hole, which is not considered a Reduced Emissions Completion (REC) or a health hazard.

In January 2026, an Errata Sheet for the Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The revisions to the Recirculated Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) presented in the Errata reflect the addition of a new Figure 9 (Plugged Dry Gas Well Location), as well as adding the cited sources to the sources list on pages 2 through 4 of the Recirculated IS/MND. Additionally, the IS/MND has been revised for consistency with the updated Planning Survey Report.

Analysis in the IS found seven (7) of the 21 impact categories require mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. All other 14 impact categories were found to have either no impacts or a less than significant impacts. A summary of the mitigation measures can be found in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”), included as Exhibit “A” to the Proposed Resolution attached to this Staff Report.

Recommendation for adoption of the MND is included in the proposed resolution for recommendation for approval of the entitlement associated with the project. The NOI and IS/MND are included as attachments to this Staff Report.

Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan This project is subject to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “HCP Plan”). Projects that are subject to the HCP Plan are required to submit a Planning Survey Report (“PSR”) as part of the project application. The contents of the PSR help guide the project through compliance with both the California and Federal Endangered Species Act by assuming presence of certain plant and animal species and requiring additional surveys to be done prior to any ground disturbance. In addition, whether species are found or not, the project must pay development impact fees for each acre, or fraction thereof, of the project area. Those development impact fees are used to help create, install, and maintain habitat outside of the Urban Limit Line, as well as administer the HCP Plan. The project would contribute $1,063,825.00 to the HCP/NCCP program under the impact fees current as of the date of this staff report. 78 STAFF REPORT
CITY HALL 9 | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.oakleyca.gov
Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
The Community and Economic Development Goal includes a Strategic and Thoughtful Growth Objective that states, “Plan and develop Cypress Corridor holistically with improvements and commerce to service new development to ease downtown traffic.” Development of this project will bring in new residents needed to support that future commercial growth in places such as the northwest corner of East Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue. Also, this project will be consistent with the Parks and Open Space Goal by providing a new park.

Fiscal Impact
The approval of these entitlements will not impact the General Fund. This is a developer funded account. All Staff time and City of Oakley generated materials are charged to the developer account funded by the developer.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the proposed resolution approving the Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 (TM 02-23), and adopt the IS/MND and the MMRP, as conditioned.

Attachments

1. Notice of Public Hearing

2. Vicinity Map

3. Project Plans

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6-26

5. Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Exhibit “A”: Errata to Stonecreek Subdivision CEQA Documents b. Exhibit “B”: Stonecreek Subdivsion: Response to Comments

6. Proposed Resolution
a. Exhibit “A”: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 79 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on April 28, 2026 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council of the City of Oakley will hold a Public Hearing at the Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for the purposes of considering an application as described below:

Project Name: Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 (TM 02-23)
Project Location: Sellers Avenue; APNs 033-140-020, 021, and 028 Applicant: Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. (Jeff Schroeder) 5020 Franklin Dr, Ste. 200, Pleasanton, CA 94588 [email protected]
Request: Application by Ponderosa Homes II, Inc. ("Applicant") requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map (TM 02-23) to subdivide approximately 50.5 acres into 176 single-family residential lots, a 2.4-acre park, a 2.7-acre detention basis, a 1.1-acre, 75-foot wide creek setback, and other associated improvements ("Project"). The applicant states a Design Review application, including landscaping and architecture, will be submitted separately at a later date. The Vesting Tentative Map has been assigned number 9647. The project is located on the west side of Sellers Avenue, approximately 0.5 miles north of Delta Road and 1 mile south of East Cypress Road. The project site is zoned P-1 (Planned Unit Development) District which is associated with a previously approved and now expired tentative map (8973). APNs 033-140-020, 021, and 028.

How to Review: The Staff Report and its attachments will be available for public review, on or before April 23, 2026 at City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or online at https://www.oakleyca.gov/129/Agendas-Minutes by navigating to the April 28, 2026 City Council agenda and clicking the project title link. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments prior to and may testify at the public hearing. Written comments may be submitted to Jose Cortez, Senior Planner at the City of Oakley, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 or by email to [email protected].

NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b) that, if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court by you or others, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at a Public Hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Oakley City Clerk at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. 80 Vicinity Map
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 (TM 02-23)
APN: APNs 033-140-020, 033-140-021, and 033-140-028
81 >
>
>
>
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
25 24 23 22
53 54 55 56 57 58
38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68
59 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60
21 39
40 41
78 79
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 92 93 94 95 96 97 99 100 101 98 102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
113 112 111 110
114
115
116
117
118
119
136
135
134
129
130
128
154 153 152 151 150 149 124 123 122 121 120
125 126 127
133 132 131
145
144
143
138
139
137
146 147 148
142 141 140
155 156 157
158
159
160
168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161
169

STREET B

STREET A

STREET C TETON ROAD

STREET D STREET E STREET F STREET G STREET H COURT B

COURT A PARCEL A

STORMWATER
BASIN

PARCEL C MARSH CREEK SELLERS AVENUE

DELTA DIABLO WATER

DISTRICT WELL SITE
(NOT A PART)

FUTURE PARK

PARCEL B
90 91
170
171
172 173
174
175
176

SEIRRA TRAIL ROAD KINGS CANYON WAY
0 100 200 300
1 SCALE: 1"=100'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM01.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
N

VICINITY MAP
GENERAL NOTES:

Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title

GENERAL NOTES & SHEET INDEX

PARCEL SUMMARY

PARCEL / LOT LAND USE AREA OWNER

DATUM CONVERSION NOTE
82 033-140-028
033-140-021 033-140-020

MARSH CREEK GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW

OHW OHW
OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW

OHW OHW OHW OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW
OHW

OHW OHW

OHW SELLERS AVENUE

DELTA DIABLO WATER

DISTRICT WELL SITE
(NOT A PART) KINGS CANYON WAY

SEIRRA TRAIL ROAD TETON ROAD
0 100 200 300
2 SCALE: 1"=100'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM02.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP

EXISTING CONDITIONS
83 79
158
156 155 157
167 166 165 164
159
160
163 162 161
154 153 152 151 150 149
80 78
142 141 140
146 147 148
144 138
143 139
145 137
76 73 72 71 70 69 68 74 77 75 67
85 87 88
86 81 82 83 84
34 33 32 31 30
35 42 52
38 39
46 28
43 47 48 49 50 51
45 44
37 29
41 40
36 1 2 3 4 8 6 5 7 9 10 11 12

STREET B

STREET A

STREET C TETON ROAD

STREET D STREET E STREET F COURT A

MARSH CREEK

SEIRRA TRAIL ROAD KINGS CANYON WAY
89 90 91
168
169
176
170
171
172 173
174
175 PARCEL A

DELTA DIABLO WATER

DISTRICT WELL SITE
(NOT A PART)

FUTURE PARK

PARCEL B

TYPICAL STREET

STREET CONNECTION
AT EXISTING TETON ROAD 0 80 160 240 3
SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM03.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
DIMENSION SITE PLAN (WEST) SEE SHEET 4
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

ABBREVIATIONS
84 STREET B

STREET A

STREET C

STREET D STREET F STREET G STREET H COURT B SELLERS AVENUE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
56 21
57 58
24 23 22
59 54 55 53
27 26 25
66 65 64 63 62 61 60
94 92 93 95 96 97 100 99
98 106
105
108
107
109
118
117
119
112 111 110
115
114
116
113
124 123 122 121 120
126 125 127
136 128
133 132 131
134 130
135 129

PARCEL C

STORM WATER
BASIN

PARCEL C
102 104
101
103

SELLERS AVENUE ROADWAY WIDENING
(2-LANE COLLECTOR) 0 80 160 240 4
SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM04.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
DIMENSION SITE PLAN (EAST) SEE SHEET 3
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION

ABBREVIATIONS
85 X
X X
X X
>
>
>
>
>

STREET B

STREET A

STREET C

STREET D STREET E STREET F KINGS CANYON WAY

MARSH CREEK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
32 31 30 29 28
33 38 37 36 35 34
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
71 70 69 68
72 77 76 75 74 73 67
39 40
41 78
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
154 153 152 151 150 149
145
144
143
138
139
137
146
147
148
142 141 140
155 156 157
158
159
160
168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161
169
170
176
174
175
171
172 TETON ROAD
D
C
A
B
C
E
E
B
F
E
173

COURT A
90 91
0 80 160 240
5 SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM05.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (WEST) SEE SHEET 6

SECTION F

SECTION C

SECTION E

SECTION A SECTION B
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS

SECTION D

EDGE GRADING NOTE

DATUM CONVERSION NOTE

PAD ELEVATION NOTE - MARSH CREEK EDGE

EDGE GRADING NOTE
86 SELLERS AVENUE STREET B

STREET A

STREET C

STREET D STREET G STREET H COURT B
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
23 22 24 25
53 54 55 56 57 58
27 26
59 66 65 64 63 62 61 60
21 92 93 94 95 96 97
99 100 101
98 102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
113 112 111 110
114
115
116
117
118
119
136
135
134
129
130
128
124 123 122 121 120
125 126 127
133 132 131 STREET F C BA E F

STORMWATER
BASIN D D D 0 80 160 240 6
SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM06.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (EAST)
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS SEE SHEET 5

SECTION C

SECTION E SECTION F

SECTION A SECTION B

SECTION D

EDGE GRADING NOTE

EDGE GRADING NOTE
87 X X X X X

STREET B

STREET A

STREET C TETON ROAD

STREET D STREET E STREET F COURT A KINGS CANYON WAY MARSH CREEK SEIRRA TRAIL ROAD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
33 32 31 30 29 28
35 34 37 36 38
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67
39 40
41 78
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
152 151
153 154
144
138
139
137
146 147
148
141
155 156
157
158
159
163 162 161
166 165 164
167
168
169
80 79
170
171
172
176
175
174
173
90 91
142 140
145
143
150 149
160 0 80 160 240 7
SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM07.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (WEST) SEE SHEET 8

TYPICAL UTILITY LATERAL DETAIL
HOUSE
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS
88 STREET B

STREET A

STREET C

STREET D STREET F STREET G STREET H COURT B SELLERS AVENUE 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
25 24 23 22
58 54 55 56 57 53
27 26
59 65 64 63 62 61
60 66
21 93
94 95 96 97 99 100 101
98 102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
113 111
114
115
116
117
118
136
134
129
130
128
124
125 127
132 131 112
135
92 119
133
123 122 121 120
126 0 80 160 240 8
SCALE: 1"=80'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM08.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO. 9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (EAST) SEE SHEET 7
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION ABBREVIATIONS
89 >
>
>
>
DMA 1
IMP 1

STREET B

STREET A

STREET C TETON ROAD

STREET D STREET E STREET F STREET G STREET H COURT B

MARSH CREEK SELLERS AVENUE

SEIRRA TRAIL ROAD
DMA 2

FUTURE PARK

PARCEL B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
25 24 23 22
53 54 55 56 57 58
38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68
59 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60
21 39
40 41
78 79
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 92 93 94 95 96 97 99 100 101 98 102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
113 112 111 110
114
115
116
117
118
119
136
135
134
129
130
128
154 153 152 151 150 149 124 123 122 121 120
125 126 127
133 132 131
145
144
143
138
139
137
146 147 148
142 141 140
155 156 157
158
159
160
168 167 166 165 164 163 162 161
169 COURT A
90 91
170
171
172 173
174
175
176
DMA 3
0 100 200 300
9 SCALE: 1"=100'
G:\1216-010\ACAD\TM\TM09.DWG
JOB NO.: 1216-010

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.
9 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP

BIORETENTION AREA

BIORETENTION AREA SUMMARY

DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT

AREA (SF)

IMPERVIOUS

AREA (SF)

PERVIOUS

AREA (SF)

REQUIRED TREATMENT

AREA (SF)

PROVIDED TREATMENT

AREA (SF)

PONDING

DEPTH (IN)
25 IMP 1

PRELIMINARY STORM WATER

CONTROL PLAN LEGEND
DMA 1
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
City of Oakley
Planning Division
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
September 2025
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A,  Sacramento  CA  95834
Office 916.372.6100  Fax 916.419.6108
OAKLEY

CALIFORNIA
110
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i
September 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1 B. SOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ....................................... 5 D. DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................... 5 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 6 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. 7 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................................................................ 16 I. AESTHETICS. ..................................................................................................... 17 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .................................................. 20 III. AIR QUALITY. ..................................................................................................... 21 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .............................................................................. 31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................................. 39 VI. ENERGY. ............................................................................................................ 42 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ..................................................................................... 46 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. .................................................................... 50 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ..................................................... 54 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................... 57 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................... 63 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................... 64 XIII. NOISE. ................................................................................................................ 65 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. .......................................................................... 71 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ........................................................................................... 72 XVI. RECREATION. .................................................................................................... 75 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. .......................................................................................... 76 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ................................................................... 81 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................... 83 XX. WILDFIRE. .......................................................................................................... 86 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. .................................................. 87 Appendices
Appendix A – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CalEEMod Results Appendix B – Traffic Impact Study
Appendix C – Planning Survey Report
Appendix D – Peak Flow Control Modeling
Appendix E – VMT Analysis Memorandum
111
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 September 2025
A. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Stonecreek Subdivision 9647

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakley
Planning Division
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 94561

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Strelo
Community Development Director
(925) 625-7000

4. Project Location: South of the Kings Canyon Way/Sierra Trail Boulevard intersection Oakley, CA 94561
Accessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 033-140-020, -021, and -028

5. Project Applicant Name and Address: Jeff Schroeder
Ponderosa Homes II, Inc.
5020 Franklin Drive, Suite 200
Pleasanton, CA 94588

6. Existing General Plan Designation: Residential Low (RL) and Residential Very Low (RV)

7. Existing Zoning Designation: Planned Unit Development (P-1) District

8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The 50.44-acre project site, identified by APNs 033-140-020, -021, and -028, is located southwest of the intersection of Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Boulevard in the City of Oakley, California. The project site is primarily undeveloped and was graded in 2006. A single-family residence and ancillary structures were previously located in the southeast corner. However, all structures have been demolished and only remnant building foundations remain on-site. The site also contains two palm trees located in the northwest corner of the site. Surrounding existing uses include single-family neighborhoods to the north; single-family residences and agricultural uses to the east across Sellers Avenue, as well as to the south; and a single-family residential neighborhood to the west. It should be noted that Marsh Creek and the associated Marsh Creek Regional Trail are located along the western project site boundary. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as RL and RV, and the site is zoned P-1.

RECIRCULATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECIR
112
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 September 2025

10. Project Description Summary:

The Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project (proposed project) would subdivide the project site into 176 single-family residential lots. On-site improvements would include approximately one acre of open space within a 75-foot setback from Marsh Creek, a 2.43- acre park in the northwest corner of the project site, and a 2.7-acre stormwater detention basin in the northeast corner of the site. An internal roadway network would connect to existing roadways to provide site access, including Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way to the north of the site and Sellers Avenue to the east. Each lot would range in size from 6,000 square feet (sf) to 16,182 sf, and utility improvements would be included on-site and within the surrounding roadways. Frontage improvements would include a 26-foot-wide roadway dedication along the Sellers Avenue frontage to the east. The project would include removal of the existing remnant foundations and on-site trees would be removed. The proposed project would require approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.

11. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:

In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), a project notification letter was distributed to the chairpersons of the following tribes on August 23, 2024: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Nashville Enterprise Miwok- Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and The Confederated Villages of Lisjan. Three responses from the foregoing tribes were received within the consultation period, from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People. The City consulted with all three tribes, including sending requested information and holding a meeting with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation on September 25, 2024. Consultation with all three tribes has since been closed.

B. SOURCES
All technical reports and modeling results prepared for the project analysis are available at:
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/ceqa-documents/. The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND):

1. Antioch Unified School District. Facilities Master Plan [pg. 284]. July 2018.

2. Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/hazard-viewer/. Accessed June 2024.

3. ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.

4. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Summary of Peak Flow Control Modeling for the Stonecreek Subdivision City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. November 9, 2023.

5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/californiaenvironmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines. Accessed May 2024. 113
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 September 2025

6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/air-qualitysummaries. Accessed May 2024.

7. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.

November 16, 2022.

8. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.

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

10. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2024.

11. California Department of Conservation. California Tsunami Maps. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. Accessed June 2024.

12. California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed June 2024.

13. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Available at: https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html.

Accessed June 2024.

14. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary: Potrero Hill Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3591. Accessed June 2024.

15. California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Available at: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed May 2024.

16. City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

September 2002.

17. City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan. Adopted January 11, 2022.

18. City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan Focused General Plan Update. Adopted January 11, 2022.

19. City of Oakley. Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Summer 2007.

20. City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015.

21. Contra Costa Conservation and Development. 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map. Available at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-UnderContract. Accessed May 2024.

22. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2022 Annual Report. Available at:
https://www.cccfpd.org/2022-annual-report/. Accessed June 2024.

23. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List.

Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp. Accessed June 2024.

24. Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.

25. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006.

26. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0360G.

Effective March 21, 2017.

27. H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.

28. Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan [pg. I-3]. Updated April 2017.

29. Moore Biological Consultants. Application Form and Planning Survey Report. July 2015.

30. Northwest Information Center. Records Search Results for the Proposed Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project. June 10, 2024.
114
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4 September 2025

31. State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed June 2024.

32. TDM Specialists, Inc. Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project, TDM Planning. June 9, 2025.

33. TJKM. Stonecreek Residential Development Oakley, CA Traffic Impact Study. July 17, 2023. Revised November 20, 2023.

34. TJKM. Stonecreek TIS VMT Analysis Memo. November 22, 2024.

35. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia#. Accessed June 2024. 115
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 September 2025
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water
Quality
 Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources
 Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service
Systems
 Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of
Significance

D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Ken Strelo, Community Development Director City of Oakley Printed Name For
116
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6 September 2025
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This IS/MND provides an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project. The applicant has submitted this application to the City of Oakley, which is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA review. The IS/MND contains an analysis of the environmental effects of construction and operation of the proposed project.

In December 2002, the City of Oakley adopted the Oakley General Plan and the Oakley General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR was a program-level EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Sections 15000 et seq.). The General Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the Oakley General Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan.

In January 2022, the City of Oakley adopted the Focused General Plan Update and the Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND). The Focused General Plan Update IS/ND analyzed implementation of the Focused General Plan Update. The Focused General Plan Update amended the City’s existing General Plan to bring it into compliance with State requirements related to environmental justice, mobility, and climate change and adaptation.

The Focused General Plan Update also updated the setting information, and provided minor revisions to the goals, policies, and programs in the following elements: Land Use, Growth Management, Open Space and Conservation, Parks and Recreation, Noise, and Economic Development. All updates were applied to be consistent with current conditions, to remove policies and programs that have already been implemented or are no longer applicable, to update policies and programs to reflect current City practices, and to clarify the City’s approach to achieving the vision and goals of the General Plan.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(a), the City of Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, General Plan EIR, and Focused General Plan Update IS/ND are incorporated by reference. The aforementioned documents are available online at:
 https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/departments/planning-zoning/reference-documents/  https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/general-plan-update/
The impact discussions for each section of this IS/MND have been largely based on information in the Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, Oakley General Plan EIR, and Focused General Plan Update IS/ND, as well as the project-specific technical studies.

In addition, the project site was subject to previous evaluation under CEQA as part of a 2005 Initial Study (2005 IS) for the Bacchini Residential Project. Similar to the proposed project, the Bacchini Residential Project included development of 176 single-family residences on the same project site. As part of approval of the Bacchini Residential Project, the project site was rezoned from Heavy Agriculture (A-3) to P-1, the on-site structures were demolished and removed, and the project site was graded. It should be noted that the 2005 IS included mitigation to ensure all potentially significant impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, the Bacchini Residential Project did not move forward with vertical development, and the Tentative Map has since expired.

The Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project IS/MND was circulated by the City of Oakley on October 7, 2024, for public review and comment until November 5, 2024. Following the public review period, staff-initiated changes resulted in substantial revisions to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 117
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 September 2025
analysis. Specifically, the changes resulted in a new potentially significant impact related to VMT and a new mitigation measure under question XVII-b to reduce the newly identified impact to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measure XVII-1). Thus, consistent with CEQA Section 15073.5, the IS/MND was revised and supersedes the previously circulated version.

The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND would be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA, and the mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project. In addition, a project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be adopted in conjunction with approval of the project.

F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a comprehensive description of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, including the project location and setting, and project components.

Project Location and Setting
The 50.44-acre project site is located south of the intersection of Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Boulevard in the City of Oakley, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The project site is currently undeveloped and was graded in 2006 as part of the Bacchini Residential Project. The southern portion of the site was formerly developed with a single-family residence and associated ancillary structures in the southeast corner. However, all structures have since been demolished, leaving only remnant foundations. In addition, two palm trees are located on-site in the northwestern corner.

Surrounding existing uses include single-family neighborhoods to the north; single-family residences and agricultural uses to the east across Sellers Avenue, as well as to the south; and single-family residential neighborhood to the west. It should be noted that Marsh Creek and the associated Marsh Creek Regional Trail are located along the western site boundary. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as RL and RV, and the site is zoned P-1.

Project Components
The proposed project would involve subdivision of the project site and development of the site with 176 single-family residential lots, one acre of open space within a 75-foot setback from Marsh Creek, a 2.43-acre park in the northwest corner of the project site, and a 2.7-acre stormwater detention basin in the northeast corner of the site, as well as associated utility improvements. The project would include removal of the remaining building foundations and on-site trees. The following sections provide additional details related to the proposed VTM and requested discretionary actions.

Vesting Tentative Map
The Vesting Tentative Map would divide the project site into a total of 179 lots comprised of 176 single-family residential lots, Parcels A, B, and C, as well as an internal roadway network that would connect to the surrounding roadways (see Figure 3). The single-family lots would range in size from 6,000 sf to 16,182 sf. Parcel A would function as a setback parcel adjacent to Marsh Creek and would be 75 feet long. Parcel B would be reserved in the northwestern corner of the project site for the future 2.43-acre park, and Parcel C would include the 2.7-acre stormwater detention basin in the northeast corner of the project site. Site access and circulation, landscaping, and utility infrastructure are discussed in further detail below. 118
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 8 September 2025
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
119
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 September 2025
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
120
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 September 2025
Figure 3
Vesting Tentative Map
VTCfNITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
GENERAL NOTES:

Ol'INER/APPUCANT: PONDEROSA HOMES 11 , INC.
5020 FRANl<LIN DRIVE, SIT. 200
PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925) 460-8910
,HF SCHROEDER

2. CIVIL ENGINEER CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON, INC.
2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUll[ 350
SAN RAMCN, CA 94583
(925) 866- 0322
JASON 0. VOGAN. RCE 59299
J. SOILS ENGINEER: ENGEO, INC.
17278 GOLDEN VAU.EY PARKWAY
LATHROP, CA 95330
(925) 835--0610
STE\'£ HARRIS, RG£ 2804

4. TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE· GEOMAPS INC

5. CCl,ITOOR INTERVAL

6. BENCHMARK:
3362 MA lHER FIELD ROAD
RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670
(916) 361-9133
1 - FOOT BASED ON NGVU29 (EXISllNG & PROPOSED)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BENct-iMARK #3164, SET BRASS TAG AND FASTENER IN SIDEWALK SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BRIDGE Q',fR t.lAR0-1 CREEK ON DELTA RDAO, 0.7 MILES EAST OF HIGHWAY 4. ----

OF OAKLE
033-450-0

DELTA DIABLO WATER )
DISTRICT WELL SITE 7
(NOT A PART) )
OELTADIABLOWATER~
1 •
msm1cr f t5ifr~E:i~ p.... I
171
' I 39 I
I 40 I I 41 L
1/"'
r 78 I
I I 79 I I 80 t _
.. . iw,J...-1-.

DI
o ·u
LAN
-
-
4 38 37 36
42 43 44
77 76 75
81 82 83
-
166 165 164
6 STREET A
35 34 33 32
45 46 47 48

STREETB
74 73 72 71
84 85 86 87

STREETC
163 162
-"""1
161
31 30
49 50
70 69
88 89
1/"'
r
I I 142 I
29 51 68
90 141
Qo ' • I- 'T' / I"'
n:::: a ::I EDGEMONT EDGEMONT STATION,
~
,. :3 l[) ta '1 STATI ON, LLC ( ,. </) I-~~ 033-150-011 ~ (")I;". •. ("f) • " .....
0 II 12 13
""' ;--- 'i
28 : ' I 27 I

I I I I
52 I I I I 53
). ' -" "--
""' 1/"' i r
67 I
I
I 66 I

I I I I
91 I I : 92
).
-" L
""' i .,....- r
140 133
, 033- 150-018 LAND USE: SFM/R-10
LAND USE: SFM/_R-10
14 15 16
26 25 24
54 55 56
65 64 63
93 94 95
'1
132 131
17 18 19
23 22 21
57 58 59
i
62 61 60 I
I I I
96 97 I I
).
-"
r ,.------
114
20 . . ,, .....
:c: r,.... -
: 98
fen
113
I I
: 99 100 IOI :
l ).
~--------
_,.
112 Ill

7. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY:

ELEVATION = 42.027 FEET (NGVD29)
AERIAL TC1'0GRAPHY IS BASED ON PHOTOGR APHY TAKEN ON AUGUST 19, 2022 AND PREPARED BY GEOM APS. THE F'UGHT WAS SURVEY GROUND CONTROLLED BY CARLSON, BARBEE & GIBSON, INC.

I I 143
= =-=~~~~!~.a::=.':::::'~~;:::-~:=:f--'---'---iil
160 ""' 139
'-'-
I-
...

II I
134 130

8. BASIS OF BEARINGS: 9. FLOOD ZONE:

10. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO:

11. PROPOSED SITE AREA:

12. EXISTING LANO USE:
13 PROPOS£0 LANO USE
14 ZONING:
15 PROPOSED LOT SIZES·
16 PROPOS[O DENSITY 17 EXISTING STRUCTlJRES: 18. EXISTING UTILITIES 19. EXISTING TREES:
20 WALLS ANO FENCING:

THE BASIS Of BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY WAS DETERMINED BY FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENTS ON ll-tE EAST LINE Of THE NORTHEAST CXJARITR Of SECTION 31, T.2 N., R.J E, M.0.B.&M.; THE BEARING BEING N01'02'1o·w P£R 72 PM J3 ANO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PREOSE TRA\£RSE OF S8...LIRS AVENUE. THE BEARINGS SHO\frN ARE ON THE CALIFORNIA COOROINAl( SYSlEM ZONE Ill
ZONE X (SEE DA TUM CONVERSION NOTE}

REFER TO FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP
PANEL 06013C0360G (MARCH 21, 2017)
033-140-020, OJJ-140-021 & 033-140- 028

50.44± AC

RESIDEN TIAL LOW (RL) & RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW (RV) RESIDEN TIAL LOW (RL) & RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW (RV)

DA TUM CONVERSION NOTE
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC INFOfU~ATlON SHO~ IS BASED ON THE NATIONAL GEOOETIC VERTICAL. DATlJM Of 1929 {NGV029). FEl,4A FLOOD ZONE ANO BASE FLOOO El.EVA TIONS ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VER TICAL DAlUM OF 1988 (NAvU88).

ALL NGV029 ELEVATIONS CAN BE CON'.fRlID TO NAl/088 BY ADDING 2.J7 FEET. FOR EXAMPLE. ELEVATION Jl.00 (NG'vtl29) + 2.J7 (CONVERSION FACTOR) = ELEVATI ON 33.J7 (NAVD88).

P-1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOf'MENT 'MTH OEVELOf'MENT PLAN (P-1) (ORDINANCE NO. 30-05) 60' X 100' - 6,000 SF MIN
70' X 110' - 7,500 Sf MIN
176 DU / 50.44± AC = J.5 DU/AC

ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS 'MTHIN THE PRQ,,ECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WllHIN lHE PRQ.ECT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OlHER'MSE NOTED.

EXISTING TREES 'MTHIN THE PRO.£CT BOUNDARY TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE N01£0. 033-140-022
LA,ND US[ SFL/R-15 ••
I I 1,------'ll "'
\
, ;,_ - · I \\
':.!
155
154
159 I 144 13 8 I en
158
I I 145 137 I I
156 157 I I 146 147 148 I
). l
_
).
__,. '- -"

STREETD
----._
i
153 152 151 150 149 :

I
WARREN ~_, 1 -
033-140-010
LAND USE: SFL/R- 15
135 129
117
136 128
118
125 126 127
l ).
'-
,....---
r
124 123 122 121
- / --FURLONG
[ 033-140-004 LAND USE: Sfl/R-15 J
,1
LLC ,
All WALLS AND FENCING 'MLL BE PRIVAlUY OWNED ANO PRIVATELY MAINTAINED EXCEPT LANDSCAPE PRIVACY WALLS ALONG SELLERS AVENUE \\1-IICH 'MLL 8[ IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. PARCEL SUMMARY Sheet List Table

21. PUBLIC UTILITIES: 22 UTILITY PROVIDER· 23 STREETS 24 GRADING:

15. BOUNDARY:
16 PHASING:

17. FINAL MAP:
18 OIIJ[ NSIONS:

All UTILITIES 'MlHIN nlE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR \'i1THIN A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT 'Nill BE PUBLIC ANO WIU BE PUBLICLY O'.mEO AND MAINTAINED.

SE~R:

WATER:

STORM DRAIN
GAS & ELECTRIC:

TELEPHONE:

CABLE TV:

IRON HOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT

OIABLO WATER DISTRICT

OTY OF OAKLEY

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
AT&T

COMCAST

ALL STREETS WILL BE PER CITY STANDARD ANO DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF OAKLEY AS A PUBLICLY OWNED ANO MAINTAINED STREET. PROPOS[O GRADING IS PRELIMINARY. FINAL GRADING IS SUMCT TO FINAL DESIGN.

THE BOONOARY ANO EASEMENTS SHO'l'IN HEREON ARE BASED UPON RECORD TITLE INFORMATION AS LISTED ANO DESCRIBED IN THE PRELIMINARY TITlf REPORT PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN mu COIJPANY, DAITO APRIL 14, 2022, ORDER NUMB[R 01J1-625476ala.

NO ADDITIONAL TilLE RESEAROi HAS BEEN PR£FOl:MEO TO COMPL£1E lHIS PACKAGE PROJECT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES.

MULTIPLE FINAL MAPS MAY BE FILED UPON APPROVAL Of THE VESTING TENTATII/E SUBOMSION MAP.

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE PREUl,UNARY ANO SUBJECT TO CHANGE 'MTH FINAl MAP.

PARCELi LOT LAND USE
LOTS 1-176 RESIJENTIAL
PARCEl A HCP BUFFER / OPEN SPACE
PARCEL B PARK PARCEL C STORM WA TrR DETENTION BASIN & WATER QUALITY

N/A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
TOTAL:

AREA OWNER
Sheet Number
I

30.74 AC PRIVATE 1

1.00 AC aTY 3

2.4.3 AC aTY '

2.74 AC OTY 5
6 13.53 AC OTY 7

50.44AC 8
9 Sheet Title

GENERAL NOTES & SHEET INDEX

EXISTING CONDITIONS
DIMENSION SITE PLAN (v.-rST)

DIMENSION SITE PLAN (EAST)
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN {l't£ST)

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN (EAST)
PRELIMINARY UTILITY Pl.AN (~ST)

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (EAST)
PRELIMINARY Sla:lM WATER CONTROL. PLAN
OAKLEY
- ~ -

CALIFORNIA

GENERAL NOTES & SHEET INDEX

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1"=100' DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
r, r, I SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I L.J L.....J ROSEV l~C..,:00~90:)788-4456 0 100 200 300 CIVIL ENGINEERS • S URVEYORS PLANNERS

SHEET NO
1 0F9SHEETS
121
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 January 2025
Site Access and Circulation
An internal roadway system would be constructed throughout the project site to provide access to each unit. The internal roadways would be within a 56-foot right-of-way (ROW) and would include a five-foot sidewalk, five-foot landscape strip, eight-foot parking, and a 10-foot travel lane in each direction. Primary vehicular access to the site would be provided from Kings Canyon Lane and Sierra Trail Road north of the project site, and Sellers Avenue to the east. The other internal roadways would be stubbed to the south and west of the project site.

Landscaping
As part of the proposed project, the two on-site palm trees would be removed, and landscaping improvements would be provided throughout the project site. A variety of trees and shrubs would be provided along the internal roadways, as well as the frontage of the residential lots. A six-foot landscape privacy wall would be included along the eastern boundary of the site to separate the proposed residences from Sellers Avenue. All landscaping would comply with the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).

Utilities
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the Diablo Water District (DWD).

The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch water lines throughout the project site within the internal roadway network, and would connect to the existing water main in Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Road (see Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Ironhouse Sanitary District (ISD). The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site within the internal roadway network, and would ultimately connect to the existing sanitary sewer system in Sellers Avenue.

Runoff from the new impervious surfaces on the project site would be collected in curbs, gutters, and a new network of 15- to 24-inch stormwater lines throughout the site. Stormwater would be directed towards the 2.7-acre detention area located on Parcel C (see Figure 6). Following treatment, the runoff would be discharged into the City’s stormwater main in Sierra Trail Road.

Frontage Improvements
The proposed project would include frontage improvements within a 0.37-acre area along Sellers Avenue to the east, primarily comprised of a 26-foot-wide roadway widening and dedication (see Figure 7). The roadway widening area would include two six-foot-wide landscaping areas on either side of a six-foot-wide sidewalk. The proposed residences along the eastern site boundary (Lots 103 through 109) would be separated from the frontage improvement area by a landscape privacy wall. In addition, the proposed frontage improvements would include eight feet of space as a buffer between the easternmost landscaping area and the existing roadway. It should be noted that the existing roadway includes a five-foot buffer. Following construction of the frontage improvements, the total roadway buffer would be 13 feet wide.

Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Oakley:
 Adoption of the IS/MND;
 Adoption of the MMRP; and
 Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map.
122
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 12 January 2025
Figure 4
Preliminary Utility Plan (West)

CITY OF OAKLEY
------- - 033-450-044 ·,,,
77 81
76 75
82 83
~·
155
142
143
159
152 151 150
INV OUT 17.8
(Q ~_-WARR £i\J- ~ --
~ 3-1 :.0-010 ~ \
OAKLEY
-~-

CA LIFOR N I A

CONCEPTUAL STREET TREE

LOCATION (CENTER BETWEEN

CURB DRAIN & WA TER LATERAL)
WATER LATERAL_/ '--SE'-M:R LATERAL

TYPICAL UTILITY LATERAL DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
------ PRO.{CT BOUNDARY
----- LOT LINE

TOP CURB
---------
--------- EASEMENT
----- ----- CENTERLINE

SIDEWALK
AC PAv£MEN T
I + + + + 810RETENT10N
--~ -- STORM DRAIN PIPE
----m:uD-- SANITARY SE'll{R PIPE
- - -EIT:]1- - - ------o::D- WATER PIPE
[JI " CATO! BASIN
Ill Ill FIELD INLET
0 • MANHOLE
PRCf'ERTY LINE

TH RU THE CURB DRAIN (TYP)

ABBREVIATIONS
AC ASPHALT CONCRETE AfJ AREA DRAIN
BD BOUNDARY BO BL0W0FF BW BACK OF WALK

CB CATCH BASIN
a. CENTERLI NE

EX EXISTING FC FACE Of CURB FH FIR£ HYDRANT
Fl FIELD INLET

INV INVERT
JT J~NT TRENCH
OB Q',{RBUILD

PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT

R RADIUS
Sf SOOARE ITET
so STORM DRAIN

SOFM STORM DRAIN FORCE MAIN SOMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
ss SANITARY SEl'l£R
WATIR VAl\lE ssr• SANITARY SEWER FORCE t.4AIN
... .... FlRE HYDRANT SSMH SANITARY SEWER t.4ANHOLE
• SW SIDEWALK 8LOY!{)ff TC TOP OF CURS TSU T~ OF SOIL t.4 1X T'I!' TYPICAL
WATER

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (WEST)

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647
CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFOR lA
SCALE: 1 "=80' DA TE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
nsu SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 C g ROSEVILLE • (916) 788-4456 WWW CBANDG COM 0 80 160 240 C IV IL ENG INEERS SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
SHEET NO.
7 OF9SHEETS
123
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 January 2025
Figure 5
Preliminary Utility Plan (East)
I
I 11
[lL
12 13
n " 4 q' l I ,~
1140 INV OUT 17.6 I
...:. 133 1
·
-
f-,
I
139 f-, 134
V,
t------
I 138 Ill! I [lL
I
135
137 3
~ TlI~
I
114~,., It
-l'..rNJ
25 24
55 56
,,,f ,.-'6
'Ul! '
132 13 1
130 ca..
129
23 57
w
f-,
V,
I
22 58
fH'7
OAKLEY
-~-

CALIFORNIA
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRJPTION ABBREVIATIONS
------ PROJECT BOUNDARY AC ASPHALT CONCRETE
----- LOT LINE AD AREA DRAIN
TOP Of CURB BD BOUNDARY
BD BLO'li'OFF
--------- --------- EASEMENT BW BACK OF WAU<
----- ----- C(NTERUNE CB CATCH BASIN

CL CENTERLINE

SIDEWALK EX EXISTING
FC FACE OF aJRB
AC PAVEMENT fH flRE HYDRANT
' ' ' ' fl FJELD INLET I I BIORETENTION INV INVERT
--~-- STORM DRAIN PIPE JT JOINT TRENCH
--~-- SANITARY SE'A£R PIPE OB OVERBUILD

PUE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
---~--- ------a:YJ-- WATER PIPE R RADIUS
li:il Ii CATCH BASIN Sf SQUARE FITT
FlELOINLET SD STORM DRAIN Ill Ill SDfM STORM DRAIN fORCE MAIN 0 • MANHOLE SOMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ss SANITARY SE~
H . WATER VALVE SSFM SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN
..... ... flRE HYDRANT SSIAH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
• SW SIDEWALK BLOWOfF TC TOP OF CURB TSIA TOP OF SOIL MIX "" TYPICAL w WATER

PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN (EAST)

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
STONECREEK- SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1 "=80' DA TE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
n..ru SAN RAMON (925)866-0322 C g ROSEVILLE (916) 788-4456 WWW CBANDG COM O 80 160 240 C IVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SIIEETNO.
8 OF 9SHEETS
124
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14 January 2025
Figure 6
Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan
~·c1TY OF
----
,033-450-04 ;-_. -___ ......

BIORETENTION AREA SUMMARY
OMA

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS REQUIRED TREATMENT PROVIDED TREATMENT PONDING

AREA(SF) AREA (SF) AREA (SF) AREA (SF) AREA (SF) DEPTH (IN) OMA 1 2,059,305 1,167,134 841,981 50,055 50,190 12
OMA 2 153,453 SELF-RETAINING AREA OR FUTURE BIIORETENTION AREA TO BE PROVIDED WITH PARK DESIGN OMA 3 201,478 SHI-TREATING AREA = 1. All BIORETENTION AREAS HAv£ BEEN SIZED PER THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLEANWATER PROGRAM IMP SIZING CALCULATOR 18" BIORETENTION

SOIL PER MRP
PROVISION C.3 REQUIREMENTS
12" a.ASS II

PERMEABLE
BASE
T!Y Of sm MIX (TSM) ELEVATION
AS INDICATED IN BIOR[TENTION
AREA SUMMARY TABLf
COBBLE

APRON (TYP)
4:1 TYP OVERFLOW INLET
COBBLE

APROO (TYP)
(2:1 MAX) ',,..., 4:
------------------------- ------ - --~-m--cin-~--= I i~ y»;;)0
" ' " ' "
/yji~~1
L___---s\~~.;,.,
'/.

OVERflOW SlRUCTIJRE

BIORETENTION AREA

NOT TO SCALE

BIORETENTION AREA NOTES,
4" PERFORATED (2 PERFORATION SUS MINIMUM)
SCHEDULE 40 PVC {MIN SLOPE : 0.005)

1. INSTALL A 6" DEEP 3':d' GROUlEO COOBLE OUTFALL AT All DRAIN OOTLETS ANO SWALE CONNECTION LOCATIONS TO BIORETENTICN.

2. All COBBLES SHALL BE 3"-6" IN DIAMETER.

3. MINIMUM SLOPE OF All PERFORATED PIPE TO BE 0.005.

4. All PERFORATED DRAIN PIPES TO HAI,,{ 8" MINIMUM OF DRAIN ROCK ABOVE TI-IE PIPE.

5. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 3 INCHES OF COMPOSTED NOO-FLOATING MULCH ON ANY EXPOSED EARTI-1 \YllHIN lHE BIORETENTION AREA.

LEGEND
25 D
@])
[illill
38 37 36 35 34
42 43 44 45 46
77 76 75 74 73 72
81 82 83 84 85 86
165 164 163 162
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
u..
1----'-~_,'--~l [;:i 11----'-~-'----II
141 140 133 132
7 11----1.,.-----ll t i 11---,-0-5 ---1
~! 1 1--------1 °" 106
,- 11------
- ~ I
\:I 11 1 11 0 l> l~---illl: 108
.""''°' 160
(2]./.,.._ ______ --11 r l-- 11---...... e---~"'11--------4-----11 143 139 134 130 -;;lr _c_•~+~ .· t". I ... , IJ ·j :-,,; •. r osr • .. 159 135 129
033-140-022
144 138 I
__
145 137 136 128
(· • ., I" 0•
·; ., REYES ., ,) : •
., 0 033-140-019 ... _

PROLCT BOONOARY LOT NUMBER

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED LOT LINE PROPOSED FACE OF CURB LIMIT OF DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA (OMA)

GRADE BREAK

BIORETENTION AREA

STORM DRAIN PIPE
OVERLAND FLOW DIR£C110N

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PRACTICE - BIORETENTION AR£A
I
I f------r--l--r----11 I
146 147 148
158
156 157 125 126
. ., ! t
f
~-
., :., ,. ,, ' '
l" : ;
-~-- ~3o---~ I
153 152 151 150
,. "' ,,f "' .. '--,
OAKLEY
-~-

CAL I F OR N I A

PRELIMINARY STORM WATER

CONTROL PLAN

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
STONECREEK - SUBDIVISION 9647

CITY OF OAKLEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1"=100' DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2023
r-, II I SAN RAMON • (925)866-0322 I LJ L......J ROSEV l~COA: OG~::' 766~456 0 100 200 300 C IVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS PLANNERS
JOB NO,; 1216·0!0
,,(
, ".'
)
r
SHEET NO.
9 OF 9SHEETS
125
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 January 2025
Figure 7
Proposed Frontage Improvements
76' RIGHT OF WAY
ING EX RW EX 50' RIGHT OF WAY
20' EX RW-EX CL

EX CL
30' EX CL-EX RW
EX 12'± EX 12'±

TRAVEL WAY TRAVEL WAY
I

SELLERS A VENUE ROADWAY WIDENING
(2-LANE COLLECTOR)

NOT TO SCALE

EX RW
126
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 16 January 2025
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
127
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 January 2025
I. AESTHETICS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
   
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
   
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
   
Discussion
a. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic resource would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic resource. A scenic resource includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency.

The City’s predominantly flat landscape is rich in scenic resources. Oakley’s scenic resources include the waterways of the Delta, Dutch Slough, Marsh Creek, and Contra Costa Canal, habitat areas, and open space land. Other scenic resources include the view of Mount Diablo west of the City.1 Views of the Delta, Dutch Slough, and the Contra Costa Canal are not available from the project site.

Marsh Creek can be viewed from the project site to the west. However, because the proposed project would not impact the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, public views of Marsh Creek would not be obstructed by development of the proposed project and implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Furthermore, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, potential impacts to scenic vistas and visual character associated with future development of the project site were already evaluated and considered in the General Plan EIR analysis, which concluded that the General Plan’s goals, policies, and programs would mitigate any potential impacts on the aesthetic qualities inherent in the Planning Area to a less-than-significant level.2 Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to having a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
b. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, portions of Interstate 580 (I580) and Interstate 680 (I-680) in the vicinity of the City are listed as Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, while State Route (SR) 4 and SR 160 are listed as “Eligible” for 1 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan [pg. 6-24]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 2 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3-24]. September 2002. 128
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 18 January 2025
designation.3 The project site is located approximately three miles east of SR 4 and approximately 4.15 miles southeast of SR 160. Views of the project site from either highway are not currently available due to the substantial distance and intervening urban development. Development of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The project site is located within a partially urbanized area of the City. Undeveloped land and agricultural uses occur to the south and east of the project site; however, the site has been anticipated for residential development by the City. Therefore, the applicable CEQA consideration is whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations related to scenic quality.

Development of the proposed project would also require Design Review, a City regulation related to scenic quality. The proposed project would ultimately be subject to the Design Review process. Design Review would be required prior to construction of the singlefamily units and would ensure that the aesthetic and architectural design of the development be compatible with surrounding development. For example, the proposed project would include landscaping features at the project site frontage and within the project site that would be similar to existing features in the development to the north and west of the site. To ensure the proposed residences would be designed in keeping with the surrounding residential land uses, the City of Oakley requires projects in the P-1 District to prepare a Final Development Plan including development standards. The proposed project would comply with the development standards in the Final Development Plan and would thereby ensure consistency with the surrounding residential development.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic qualities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Sources of light do not currently exist on the project site. However, off-site light sources include streetlights and traffic along Kings Canyon Way and Sierra Trail Road, as well as from surrounding residential developments. Development of the project site with 176 single-family residences and the internal road system would add new sources of light and glare to the site where minimal sources currently exist. The proposed project is anticipated to include streetlights along internal roadways and the project frontage, as well as interior lights from windows of the proposed residences. Anticipated light sources are expected to be similar to that of the surrounding area.

Pursuant to Section 9.1.1604 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to undergo a Design Review prior to final project approval to ensure that development of the project would be in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines, which establish the City’s standards for residential streetlights. For example, the Residential Design Guidelines limit residential lighting for security purposes, which would also reduce the amount of light and glare produced by the proposed residences. In addition, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the impacts of new sources of light or glare associated with future development of the 3 California Department of Transportation. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed May 2024. 129
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 January 2025
project site were already evaluated and considered in the General Plan EIR analysis. The General Plan EIR notes under Impact 3.2-A the City’s intent to preserve scenic views of Marsh Creek, but does not identify lighting and glare as a potential source of disturbance.

Overall, the City’s General Plan EIR concludes that compliance with City standards and policies would reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Based on the above, any new sources of light and glare by the proposed project are considered a less-than-significant impact.
130
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 20 January 2025
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
   
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
   
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?    
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
Discussion
a,e. Pursuant to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is designated as “Farmland of Local Importance.”4 Therefore, the site does not contain, and is not located adjacent to, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. In addition, the project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use or result in the loss of forest land to non-forest use. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
b. The project site is zoned P-1, which does not permit agricultural uses. Furthermore, the site is not under an active Williamson Act contract.5 Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
c,d. The project site is not zoned forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.

4 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed May 2024. 5 Contra Costa Conservation and Development. 2016 Agricultural Preserves Map. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/882/Map-of-Properties-Under-Contract. Accessed May 2024.
131
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 January 2025
III. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
   
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?    
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
   
Discussion
a,b. The City of Oakley is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation. The USEPA has not yet approved a request for redesignation of the SFBAAB; therefore, the SFBAAB remains in nonattainment for 24-hour PM2.5.

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

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

The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure 132
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 22 January 2025
continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. For development projects, BAAQMD establishes significance thresholds for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as well as for PM10 and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr).

The thresholds are listed in Table 1. Thus, by exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for construction and/or operational emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.

Table 1
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions
(tons/yr)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, Air Quality Guidelines, April 2023.

Particulate matter can be split into two categories: fugitive and exhaust. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance for exhaust are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that BAAQMD does not maintain quantitative thresholds for fugitive emissions of PM10 or PM2.5, rather, BAAQMD requires all projects within the district’s jurisdiction to implement Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) related to dust suppression.

The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2022.1.1.25 – a Statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, compliance with the 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), etc. Where projectspecific information is available, such information should be applied in the model.

Accordingly, the proposed project’s modeling assumed the following project and/or sitespecific information:
 Construction would begin in March 2026 and occur over approximately three years;
 The project would comply with the MWELO; and
 The project would comply with all applicable provisions of the 2022 CBSC, including 100 percent of electricity generated by rooftop solar.

The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well. All CalEEMod modeling results are included as Appendix A to this IS/MND. 133
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 January 2025
Construction Emissions
During construction of the proposed project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the project site. Construction exhaust emissions would be generated from construction equipment, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction worker commutes, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants. Project construction activities also represent sources of fugitive dust, which includes PM emissions. As construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions intermittently within the site and vicinity, until all construction has been completed, construction is a potential concern because the project is in a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

According to the CalEEMod modeling results, buildout of the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2.

As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Construction
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 11.50 54 NO
NOX 29.2 54 NO
PM10* 1.24 82 NO
PM2.5* 1.14 54 NO
Notes:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Sources: CalEEMod, June 2024 (see Appendix A).

All projects within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs, which would be required by the City as conditions of approval:

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

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

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

7. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
134
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 24 January 2025

8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s BCMMs listed above for the project’s construction activities, would help to further minimize construction-related emissions.

Overall, because the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for construction emissions, project construction would not result in a significant air quality impact.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM would be generated by the proposed project from both mobile and stationary sources. Day-to-day activities, such as the future vehicle trips to and from the project site, would make up the majority of the mobile emissions.

Emissions would also occur from area sources, such as landscape maintenance equipment exhaust.

According to the CalEEMod results, buildout of the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Maximum Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 15.60 2.67 54 10 NO
NOX 10.00 1.26 54 10 NO
PM10* 0.49 0.05 82 15 NO
PM2.5 * 0.48 0.05 54 10 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.

Source: CalEEMod, June 2024 (see Appendix A).

As shown in the table, operations of the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, operations of the project would not be considered to conflict with air quality plans during project operations.

Cumulative Emissions
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air 135
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 January 2025
quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1, the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Because the proposed project would result in both construction-related and operational emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance, construction and operations of the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. According to BAAQMD, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project may be considered consistent with the air quality plans.

As discussed above, the proposed project would result in construction and operational emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution.

Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest sensitive uses include the single-family residences located approximately 20 feet from the project site’s northern boundary.

The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TACs, as well as regional effects of emissions of criteria pollutants, which are addressed in further detail below.

Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.

Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from 136
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 26 January 2025
the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood. CO emissions are particularly related to traffic levels.

In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
 The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway, etc.).

While BAAQMD has established the foregoing screening criteria for potential impacts, it should be noted that the SFBAAB has been in attainment of California AAQS (CAAQS) and National AAQS (NAAQS) for CO for more than 20 years.6 Due to the continued attainment of CAAQS and NAAQS, and advances in vehicle emissions technologies, the likelihood that any single project would create a CO hotspot is minimal. With regard to the proposed project, according to the Traffic Impact Study prepared by TJKM, the proposed project is expected to generate 1,697 daily vehicle trips, 125 of which would be during the AM peak hour, and 169 during the PM peak hour (see Appendix B).7 The addition of 294 total peak hour trips per day generated by the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly increase traffic volumes at any nearby intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited due to tunnels, underpass, or similar features do not exist in the project area. Therefore, based on the BAAQMD’s screen criteria for localized CO emissions, the proposed project would not be expected to result in substantial levels of localized CO at surrounding intersections or generate localized concentrations of CO that would exceed standards or cause health hazards.

TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, gas dispensing facilities, and rail yards. CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Summary Reports. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/air-quality-measurement/air-quality-summaries. Accessed May 2024. 7 TJKM. Stonecreek Residential Development Oakley, CA Traffic Impact Study. July 17, 2023. Revised November 20, 2023.
137
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 January 2025
health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk.

It should be noted that 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.8 Therefore, for the purposes of the CEQA analysis, the relevant inquiry is not whether residents at the proposed single-family homes would be exposed to pre-existing TAC emissions, but instead whether project-generated emissions would exacerbate pre-existing conditions.

Although the analysis of a project’s existing TAC emissions environment is not required for CEQA purposes, such analysis is included in this document for compliance with applicable CARB recommendations. Gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) are considered sources of various types of TACs, including benzene. As a result, in order to reduce adverse health effects, the CARB recommends that typical GDFs be sited at least 50 feet away from existing sensitive land uses, or that a detailed health risk assessment be performed if such land uses are within 50 feet from each other.9 The project site is located approximately 160 feet west of an existing gas station. Therefore, the proposed residences would be sited outside of the CARB’s recommended setback distance from GDFs, and, based on agency guidance, health risks would be less than significant.

As previously noted, the nearest sensitive uses include the single-family residences located approximately 20 feet from the project site’s northern boundary. The proposed project does not include any operations that would be considered a substantial source of TACs. Accordingly, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of TACs.

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

However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Health risks are typically associated with exposure to high concentrations of TACs over extended periods of time (e.g., 30 years or greater), whereas the construction period associated with the proposed project would likely be limited to approximately three years. All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which is intended to help reduce emissions associated with off-road diesel vehicles and equipment, including DPM. Project construction would also be required to 8 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 recently 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.) 9 California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective [pg. 32].

April 2005.
138
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 28 January 2025
comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources.

During construction, only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time.

Operation of construction equipment would occur on such portions of the site intermittently throughout the course of a day over the overall construction period. Because construction equipment on-site would not operate for any long periods of time and would be used at varying locations within the site, associated emissions of DPM would not occur at the same location (or be evenly spread throughout the entire project site) for long periods of time. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively short duration of potential exposure to associated emissions, sensitive receptors in the area would not be exposed to pollutants for a permanent or substantially extended period of time.

Furthermore, any one nearby sensitive receptor would be exposed to varying concentrations of DPM emissions throughout the construction period. According to BAAQMD, research conducted by CARB indicates that DPM is highly dispersive in the atmosphere. Thus, emissions at the project site would be substantially dispersed at the nearest sensitive receptors, and the concentration of DPM at the nearest sensitive receptors would be lower than the concentration of DPM at the source of emissions.

Considering the limited nature of construction activities, the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the highly dispersive nature of DPM, and the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor from the project site, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time, during development the project, would be low. For the aforementioned reasons, project construction would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the NAAQS and CAAQS, and are designed to aid the district in achieving attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS.10 Although the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are intended to aid achievement of the NAAQS and CAAQS for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment, the thresholds of significance do not represent a level above which individual project-level emissions would directly result in public health impacts. Nevertheless, a project’s compliance with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication that criteria pollutants released as a result of project implementation would not inhibit attainment of the health-based regional NAAQS and CAAQS. Because project-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, and, thus, would not inhibit attainment of regional NAAQS and CAAQS, the criteria pollutants emitted during project implementation would not be anticipated to result in measurable health impacts to sensitive receptors. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants.

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants, including localized CO, TACs, or criteria pollutants, during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2022. 139
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 January 2025
result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
d. Emissions of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission that have the potential to cause dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in questions ‘a’ through ‘c’ above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.

Pursuant to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors do not have a numerical threshold of significance, but are generally identified through confirmed complaints. Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).11 The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odorgenerating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses, and is not sited near any such land uses.

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

However, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted to the hours of 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays per Section 4.2.208 of the City of Oakley Municipal Code. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities.

BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have not been received by the APCO for one year. The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated.

With respect to dust, as noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s BCMMs. Such measures would act to reduce construction-related dust by ensuring that haul trucks with loose material are covered, 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 5-16].

April 20, 2022.
140
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 January 2025
reducing vehicle dirt track-out, and limiting vehicle speeds within project site, among other methods, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, vehicles operating within the project site would be limited to paved areas of the site, and non-paved areas would be landscaped. In addition, as discussed in question ‘a’ above, emissions of particulate matter are anticipated to be below BAAQMD thresholds. Thus, project operations would not include sources of dust that could adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Based on the above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 141
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 September 2025
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
   
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
   
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
   
Discussion
The following discussion based primarily on a Planning Survey Report (PSR), prepared by Moore Biological Consultants for the proposed project.12 The PSR is included as Appendix C to this IS/MND.
a,f. Currently, the 50.44-acre project site consists of ruderal grassland and is primarily undeveloped. It should be noted that a single-family residence and associated ancillary structures used to be located in the southeast corner of the site; however, all structures have been demolished. As noted in the PSR, two trees are located in the northeast portion of the site, and several trees are located off-site, adjacent to the southern site boundary.

Special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Both acts afford protection to listed and proposed species. In addition, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern, sensitive species included in USFWS Recovery Plans, and CDFW special-status invertebrates are all considered special-status species. Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for special-status species, 12 Moore Biological Consultants. Application Form and Planning Survey Report. July 2015. 142
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 32 September 2025
most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of the CEQA guidelines are also considered special-status species. In addition, plant species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) categories 1A, 1B, 2B, 3, and 4 are considered special-status plant species and are protected under CEQA.

The project site is located within the boundaries of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP), which is intended to provide an effective framework to protect natural resources in the County, including special-status species. Based on the PSR, nine special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site. It should be noted that special-status plant species were not identified on-site due to the previous mass grading activities associated with the Bacchini Residential Project. Of the nine special-status wildlife species that could occur within the vicinity of the project site, three species could be located within the project site: the western burrowing owl; Swainson’s hawk; and golden eagle. All three species are covered under the ECCC HCP/NCCP.

In February 2015, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy prepared an ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species.13 The purpose of the assessment was to provide a programmatic, cumulative CEQA effects analysis for CEQA species not covered by the HCP/NCCP. The 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that mitigation measures required in the ECCC HCP/NCCP also provide mitigation for non-covered species; therefore, projects consistent with the ECCC HCP/NCCP would have a less-than-significant impact on other potential special-status species.

According to the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species, for all but two of the potential special-status species addressed (Lime Ridge navarretia [Navarretia gowenii] and the Lime Ridge eriastrum [Eriastrum ertterae]), impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. Because of uncertainty regarding the distribution of the Lime Ridge navarretia and the Lime Ridge eriastrum, the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species concluded that a potentially significant impact could occur related to the two aforementioned species. According to the PSR, known occurrences of Lime Ridge navarretia or Lime Ridge eriastrum do not occur within the project site or the surrounding area area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact the species.

Based on the conclusions of the 2015 ECCC HCP/NCCP Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species and the absence of the Lime Ridge navarretia and Lime Ridge eriatrum in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on any potential special-status species not covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP.

In compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, a PSR was prepared for the proposed project by Moore Biological Consultants, which included all species covered under the ECCC HCP/NCCP (see Appendix C). The study area of the PSR observed approximately 50.44 acres of both the project site and frontage improvement area. Approximately 50.43 acres 13 H.T. Harvey & Associates. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan – Assessment of Plan Effects on CEQA Species. February 17, 2015.
143
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 September 2025
of the study area are categorized by the Grassland (Ruderal) land cover type, 0.008-acre as seasonal wetland, and 0.37-acre as the Developed (Urban) land cover (see Figure 8).

Based on the land cover types found on-site, Moore Biological Consultants conducted onsite surveys for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle.

Special-Status Wildlife
The on-site ruderal grassland and nearby trees could provide potential habitat for western burrowing owl (Athene cunnicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). In addition, other avian species protected by the MBTA could use the existing grassland as foraging and potential nesting habitat.

Western Burrowing Owl
The primary habitat requirement for western burrowing owls is small mammal burrows that the species uses for nesting. Typically, the species uses abandoned ground squirrel burrows, but has been known to dig burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, western burrowing owls may use pipes, culverts, and piles of material as artificial burrows. Western burrowing owls breed semi-colonially from March through August.

The project site contains ruderal grassland within the range of the western burrowing owl and the site was inspected for burrowing owls and ground squirrel burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (i.e., white wash, pellets, feathers) as part of the PSR. Ground squirrel burrows were observed during the survey. However, burrowing owls or burrows with evidence of burrowing owl occupancy were not observed during the survey.

According to the PSR, most of the burrows appeared unoccupied, as cobwebs were seen at the entrance in a majority of the burrows. Nonetheless, because suitable habitat for western burrowing owl exists on the project site, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls would be required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm presence or absence of the species. If burrowing owls are present on or near the project site, project construction could result in an adverse impact to the species.

Swainson’s Hawk and Golden Eagle
Swainson’s hawk is a summer resident and migrant in California’s Central Valley and scattered portions of the southern California interior. Areas typically used for nesting include the edge of narrow bands of riparian vegetation, isolated patches of oak woodland, lone trees, planted and natural trees associated with roads, farmyards and sometimes adjacent residential areas. Foraging occurs in open habitats, including grasslands, open woodlands, and agricultural areas. Golden eagles are fairly adaptable in habitat but often reside in areas with few shared ecological characteristics, such as mountains and cliffs.

In addition, golden eagles tend to avoid developed areas in favor of remote natural settings. The project site contains ruderal grassland that is located within the range of the golden eagle.

The two trees within the project site provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks and nesting golden eagles, as well as several potential nest trees near and visible from the project site (including a row of trees at the southern project site boundary). As part of the PSR, trees on the site and visible from the site were inspected for raptor stick nests. Raptor stick nests were not observed in the surveyed trees.

Furthermore, Swainson’s hawks were not observed during the survey, which was conducted within the species’ nesting season. Golden eagles were not observed, as the species nests more often on cliffs in remote natural areas than in trees near urban areas. 144
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 34 September 2025
Figure 8
ECCC HCP/NCCP Land Cover Types
Project Site
Off-Site
Figure 3
(?Z)

50.43 Total 50.43
Urban/Developed
D (Acres)

0.008

0.37 0.008 0.37 ••
cJ Project Site (50.44 acres)
200 400
Field Verified Landcover Map
r-, r- I Off Site Improvements (0.37 acre) L
___
l
Stonecreek
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
145
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 September 2025
The CNDDB search conducted as part of the PSR did not include any occurrences of Swainson’s hawk within 1,000 feet of the project site or within the larger geographical area. Nonetheless, pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk would be required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm the presence or absence of the species. If the species were to occur on or near the project site, development of the proposed project could result in direct take or nest abandonment, which would be considered an adverse impact.

Similarly, the CNDDB search did not include any occurrences of golden eagles within 0.5- mile of the project site or within the larger geographical area, but pre-construction surveys for golden eagle would be required by the ECCC HCP/NCCP to confirm presence or absence of the species. If golden eagles are present on or near the project site, project construction could result in an adverse impact to the species.

Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds
The trees on-site and nearby may be used by other migratory birds protected by the MBTA for nesting. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of raptors and migratory birds (i.e., lead to the abandonment of active nests) or result in mortality of individual birds would constitute a violation of State and federal laws. In the event that such species occur on or near the project site during the breeding season, project construction could result in an adverse effect to species protected under the MBTA.

ECCC HCP/NCCP Requirements
Procedures for pre-construction surveys, best management practices (BMPs), and construction monitoring, as well as applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) for species covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP, are outlined in Section 6.3.3, Construction Monitoring, and Section 6.4.3, Species-Level Measures, of the ECCC HCP/NCCP.14 The proposed project would be required to comply with all ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, including pre-construction surveys. Conducting such surveys prior to ground disturbance activities would identify any on-site and nearby nests and establish whether such nests are occupied. If nests are occupied, the proposed project would be required to comply with the minimization requirements and construction monitoring in the ECCC HCP/NCCP. In addition, if nests are located within 1,000 feet of the project site, the proposed project would also follow all applicable AMMs.

All birds covered by the ECCC HCP/NCCP (including western burrowing owl, golden eagle, and Swainson’s hawks) are also considered migratory birds and subject to the prohibitions of the MBTA. Therefore, actions conducted under the ECCC HCP/NCCP comply with the provisions of the MBTA. ECCC HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.12, Implement Best Management Practices for Rural Road Maintenance and Conservation Measure, as well as Measure 1.14, Design Requirements for Covered Roads Outside of the UDA, incorporate avoidance guidelines for compliance with the MBTA. Because the project would comply with all ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, the project would also comply with the provisions of the MBTA.

Additionally, the proposed project would be subject to pay all applicable fees according to the Fee Zone Map of the ECCC HCP/NCCP prior to construction and in compliance with Section 9.2.712 of the Oakley Municipal Code. The developer would be required to pay 14 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association. Final East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. October 2006. 146
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 36 September 2025
the appropriate fees based on the applicable fee calculator at the time of development.

Payment of such fees would further reduce any adverse impacts to protected species.

Conclusion
Based on the above, western burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawks, and golden eagles have the potential to occur on-site. However, the project would comply with ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, and pre-construction surveys would be required for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle. Although the site and surrounding area contains suitable nest trees for nesting raptors and migratory birds protected by the MBTA, the project would be required to comply with the ECCC HCP/NCCP’s Avoidance and Minimization Measures for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and nesting and migratory birds. The proposed project would comply with all applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements. Thus, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS, and a less-than-significant impact would result.
b,c. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have jurisdiction over modifications to stream channels, riverbanks, lakes, and other wetland features. The USACE’s jurisdiction is established through the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. without a permit, including certain wetlands and unvegetated “other waters of the U.S.” The jurisdictional authority of the RWQCB is established pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, which typically requires a water quality certification when an individual or nationwide permit is issued by the USACE. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

An assessment of potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or wetlands in the site was undertaken on June 15, 2023. According to the PSR, potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. do not exist on-site, but 0.008-acre of seasonal wetlands is located in the northwestern area (see Figure 9). The wetland was created during initial grading of the site in 2006 and is not included in historical aerial photographs of the site. The wetland appears to be supported, or at least supplemented by, an underground water source, such as a leaking storm drain line or irrigation run-off from the landscaped areas to the north.

The 0.008-acre seasonal wetland is within the footprint of the proposed connection to Teton Road and would be filled as part of project construction. Filling the seasonal wetland would require obtaining a 401 Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB. In addition, depending on project timing, the applicant may choose to request a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD). Alternatively, the applicant may request an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD). It should be noted that, due to a Supreme Court decision on May 26, 2023, USACE is now “on hold” in processing AJD requests.

Regardless of the request, the PSR notes that USACE is highly unlikely to deem the wetland as jurisdictional.

Based on the above, without compliance with the RWQCB and USACE, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
147
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 September 2025
Figure 9
Potential Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands
1 inch • 50 feet
DataDisclaimllf:

Tht delinea~ hM tieen CIOnt in -«Ofdanee w~h tr.t 1987
Wetlar.d1 D&1.-,ulion Manual. US Army Corps of Enginee~ antl 1h1 2008R1gkwlalSuppt..,,.ntlo !111 CorpsolEngln...n We!l
_
a~ De~neauon Manuail: Ni<! West Region. The bounc!ilries and_1unsdtclionalsliltusolal-te~st,cwnon thismapare
r:~:l~~~,:~~~bjeci lo .,.;!Quo,, by 1he U.S. Army
Allf1'1Sourct:GoogleEa"'1(02/1112022)
Moore Biological
Consultants
N
+
200
1 inch = 200 feet
400
••
LJ Study Area
(50.44 acres)
Seasonal Wetland -
(0.008 ac I 334 sf)
Potential Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands
Stonecreek
City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, CA
Map Date: July 2023
148
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 38 September 2025
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

IV-1. Prior to commencement of project construction activities, the applicant shall submit an application to the RWQCB for a 401 Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division.

IV-2. Prior to commencement of project construction activities, the applicant shall request either a Preliminary or an Approved Jurisdictional Determination from USACE. If USACE declares the on-site seasonal wetland as jurisdictional waters, the project applicant shall obtain authorization to fill the wetland under Regional General Permit 1. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division. d. The project site is located in a developing area of the City. Surrounding existing uses include single-family neighborhoods to the north and west, as well as single-family residences and agricultural uses to the east across Sellers Avenue, and to the south. The developed nature of the surrounding area precludes the use of the project site as a migratory corridor. Wildlife movement could occur within Marsh Creek, which is located to the west of the project site. However, the proposed project includes a 75-foot-wide setback in Parcel A to provide a buffer between the creek and the development. As such, development of the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
e. Two palm trees currently exist on the project site. Section 9.1.1112 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that any protected trees that are removed shall be replaced. The City defines a protected tree as any tree adjacent to or part of a riparian habitat, foothill woodland, or oak savanna that measures 20 inches or larger and an indigenous tree that measures 40 inches or larger or as a California native oak that measures at least 50 inches in circumference (15.6 inches diameter). Neither of the two on-site trees are part of an existing riparian, foothill woodland, or oak savanna habitat. As a result, the removal of the two trees would not conflict with Section 9.1.1112 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 149
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 September 2025
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.    
Discussion
a. Historical resources are features that are associated with the lives of historically important persons and/or historically significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics.

In order to determine whether the project site contains significant historical resources, a records search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area.15 The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory, which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, does not list recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the project site. In addition to the OHP inventories, the NWIC base maps do not show recorded buildings or structures within the project site.

In addition, as previously discussed, the project site has been subject to mass grading activities associated with the Bacchini Residential Project. As part of grading, all structures were demolished and removed leaving the project site vacant. As such, the project site does not contain any structures that would qualify as historically significant.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b,c. According to the NWIC, the project site has been included in the study areas of two previous archaeological studies (in 1998 and 2004). According to the previously conducted archaeological studies and the CHRIS records search conducted for the proposed project, the project site does not contain recorded archaeological resources.

However, a review of historical literature and maps as part of the NWIC search indicated historic-period activity within the project area. Early maps, including the Byron U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) 15-minute topographic maps from 1916, 1940, and 1943, 15 Northwest Information Center. Records Search Results for the Proposed Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project.

June 10, 2024.
150
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 40 September 2025
indicate two buildings within the project site that were unrecorded by the Built Environment Resources Directory. Therefore, the CHRIS search concluded that a moderate to high potential exists for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be located within the project area.

In addition, pursuant to Impact 3.10-B within the Oakley General Plan EIR, “there have been few archaeological or paleontological finds in the City of Oakley.” However, the City’s General Plan EIR states that given the rich history of the Planning Area and region, the City continues to require site evaluation prior to the development of undeveloped areas, as well as requiring procedures if artifacts are unearthed during construction. While the project site has been subject to ground disturbance associated with site grading, unknown archaeological resources, including human remains, could be uncovered during grounddisturbing activities associated with project construction. If previously unknown resources are encountered during construction activities, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and/or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

V-1. If buried archaeological, paleontological, and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet of the discovery and the developer shall immediately notify the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division of the discovery. In such case, the developer shall be required, at their own expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery, as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery would not be allowed until the preceding work has occurred.

The foregoing requirements shall be noted on the project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division.

V-2. Pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (c) State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human bone or bone of unknown origin is found during construction, all work shall stop within 100 feet of the find and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall notify the person believed to be the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall work with the contractor to develop a program for reinternment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. Additional work is not to take place within 100 feet of the find until the identified appropriate actions have been implemented.
151
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 September 2025
The foregoing requirements shall be noted on the project improvement plans, subject to review and approval of compliance by the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division.
152
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 42 September 2025
VI. ENERGY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
   
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?    
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the City’s Strategic Energy Plan (SEP), with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations are provided below.

California Green Building Standards Code
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC, which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2023.16 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California.

Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
 Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures;  Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
 Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ MWELO, or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use;
 Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills;  Incentives for installation of electric heat pumps, which use less energy than traditional heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and water heaters;
 Required solar PV system and battery storage standards for certain buildings; and  Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.
16 California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023. 153
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 September 2025
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy-efficiency measures from the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, went into effect starting January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the 2019 standards. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structure would consume energy efficiently.

Strategic Energy Plan
In the fall of 2015, the City of Oakley adopted a SEP to help meet State mandates for required energy use and GHG emission reductions.17 The SEP included six energy planning goals and priorities, including, but not limited to, improving energy performance to exceed Title 24 requirements for new construction and major renovations of the City facilities; exploring opportunities for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and/or clean self-generation measures; and exploring existing economic and fiscal criteria commonly used for the evaluation and implementation of energy use reduction and energy generation strategies.

Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Even during the most intense period of construction, due to the different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction), only portions of the project site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment occurring at different locations on the project site, rather than a single location. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.

All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB’s InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. In addition, as a means of reducing emissions, construction vehicles are required to become cleaner through the use of renewable energy resources. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would therefore help to improve fuel efficiency for equipment used in construction of the proposed project. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to further reduce demand on oil and limit emissions associated with construction.
17 City of Oakley. Strategic Energy Plan. Fall 2015.
154
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 44 September 2025
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.

Operational Energy Use
Following implementation of the proposed project, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would provide electricity to the project site. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, HVAC, electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more. Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment.

In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed residential development.

The proposed residential project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high performance attics and walls, and high efficacy lighting. Required compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, electricity supplied to the project site by PG&E would comply with the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during operation of the proposed project would originate from renewable sources.

The CARB prepared the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan),18 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan provides suggestions for prioritizing various types of mitigation, such as on-site GHG-reducing design features and mitigation measures. Appendix D includes the methods to reduce VMT, support building decarbonization, and provide access to shared mobility services or transit, as well as EV charging. Appendix D provides further suggestions for prioritizing other mitigation types, including voluntary offsets issued by a recognized and reputable voluntary carbon registry.

The regulation described above, with which the proposed project must comply, would be consistent with the intention of the 2022 Scoping Plan and the recommended actions included in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the SEP, as the proposed project would comply with the latest CBSC standards regarding energy 18 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. 155
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 September 2025
conservation, renewable energy resources, and green building standards.

With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND and with implementation of Mitigation Measure XVII-1, the project site is not anticipated to substantially increase VMT.

Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 156
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 46 September 2025
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
   
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv. Landslides?    
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
   
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
   
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
   
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     Discussion
ai-ii. The project site does not contain any active or potentially active faults, nor is the site located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.19 However, according to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley is subject to seismic risk because the City is within the San Francisco Bay Area, an area of high seismicity.20 Proper engineering of the proposed buildings in compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to seismic ground shaking. Projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance with the CBSC design standards would be enforced through building plan review and require approval by the City.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of 19 California Department of Conservation. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed June 2024. 20 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3-161]. September 2002. 157
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 September 2025
a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
aiii,aiv, The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, subsidence/settlement, landslides, and lateral spreading are discussed in detail below.

Liquefaction and Subsidence/Settlement
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Because saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. Additionally, loose unsaturated sandy soils have the potential to settle during strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction can often result in subsidence or settlement.

According to the MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map, project site is located within a “high” Earthquake Liquefaction Susceptibility zone.21 Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.328 requires that as part of obtaining a Grading Permit, an application must be accompanied, among other documents, with three copies of a geotechnical or engineering geology report to excavate and grade the project site. The project’s Improvement Plans would be required to be signed by a State-certified civil engineer who prepared the geotechnical report and reviewed to ensure that the plans conform to all recommendations contained in the report.

Furthermore, Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.702 provides that upon completion of rough grading work, but before the issuance of building permits, the City Engineer may require that a soil engineering report be prepared certifying the adequacy of the site for the intended use, as affected by soil engineering reports. While the proposed project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth in Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and 6.9.702, due to the potential for liquefaction to occur on-site, foundation subsidence or settlement may occur, and, without the implementation of mitigation, an impact could occur.

Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site is relatively flat and is not located near any slopes. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to landslide risks and would not expose people or structures to potential risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading involves horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. It should be noted that Marsh Creek is located west of the project site; however, the project site is relatively flat and is not located near any slopes. Given that the project site does not contain, and is not adjacent to, any free faces 21 Association of Bay Area Governments. Hazard Viewer. Available at: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/dataresearch/hazard-viewer/. Accessed June 2024. c.
158
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 48 September 2025
including excavations, or channels or open bodies of water adjacent to slopes, lateral spreading would not present a likely hazard at the site.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the potential exists for liquefaction and associated subsidence/settlement to occur at the project site. Without implementation of mitigation, the proposed project could cause substantial adverse effects related to such. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

VII-1. Prior to approval of any building permits, the project Civil Engineer shall show on the project plans that the project design adheres to all engineering recommendations provided in the site-specific Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the Bacchini Residential Project by ENGEO, Inc. pursuant to Oakley Municipal Code Section 6.9.702 in April 2005. Proof of compliance with all recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Exploration shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. b. The proposed project would include further grading of the project site prior to construction.

During construction activities, topsoil would be exposed. Following development of the site, all exposed soils would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaping.

Therefore, the potential for erosion to occur would not exist long-term.

As discussed further under questions ‘ci’ and ‘ciii’ in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, pursuant to the City of Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.308 and 6.11.212, the proposed project would be required to prepare an Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction activities. The erosion control measures and BMPs required by both the Erosion Control Plan and the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume changes with variations in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of withstanding the potential damaging movements of the soil. Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the majority of the project site is comprised of Sorrento silty clay loam, which has a “somewhat limited” rating, with the remainer of the project site being a mix of Brentwood clay loam (very limited) and Delhi sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (not limited). The somewhat and very limited ratings indicate the on-site soils have one or more features that are unfavorable for dwellings without basements. In addition, the on-site soils have a shrink-swell numerical rating of 1.00 and 0.50, according to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey. The numerical ratings indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). Therefore, the potential exists for expansive soils to exist on site and adversely affect the proposed project.
159
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 September 2025
However, as required by Mitigation Measure VII-1, the proposed project would be subject to Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.328 and 6.9.792, which would ensure on-site expansive soils are identified and addressed in accordance with industry standard recommendations set forth by a State-certified civil engineer, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with Mitigation Measure VII-1 would ensure that adverse effects do not occur within the project site.

As such, the project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and the potential for substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property would not occur. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

e. The proposed project would connect to existing City sewer services. Thus, the construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f. The City’s General Plan does not include a discussion of any existing unique geologic features within the City. Consequently, development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the direct or indirect destruction of unique geologic features.

With respect to paleontological resources, the City’s General Plan indicates that few paleontological resources occur within the City Planning Area.22 In addition, portions of the surrounding area are developed, and paleontological resources have not been encountered in the vicinity. Thus, existing paleontological resources are not expected to occur on the site. Nonetheless, the potential exists for previously 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 resources if present. Therefore, the proposed project could result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

VII-2. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
22 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan [pg. 6-19]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 160
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 50 September 2025
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
   
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
   
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 proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. The most recent BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines were released in April 2022.23 The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including Senate Bill (SB) 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to buildings and transportation.

Construction GHG emissions are a one-time release, and thus, are not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions and do not require quantification of construction-related GHGs. Nonetheless, the proposed project’s construction GHG emissions, as well as operational emissions, have been estimated using CalEEMod under the same assumptions discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND (see Appendix A). The emissions estimates prepared for the proposed project determined that the proposed project would result in total construction-related GHG emissions of 539 MTCO2e over the entire construction period. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. April 2022. 161
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 September 2025
Potential impacts related to operational GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project are considered in comparison with BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance below.

BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
The BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and address recent climate change legislation, including SB 32. According to the new thresholds of significance, 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).24
The City of Oakley does not have a GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the new BAAQMD GHG thresholds related to specific project design elements.

According to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, in order to find a less-thansignificant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development);

2. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;

3. The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and

4. The project will achieve compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

In order to be consistent with the first criterion, the proposed project would be required to include all electric appliances and plumbing. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require that new development be built electric-ready (i.e., structures will be required to have electric supply panels and circuitry to support all-electric appliances and heating). However, the lack of natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing, consistent with the first criterion, cannot be guaranteed.

Regarding the second criterion, as discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding energy use during both project construction and project operations. Therefore, as discussed therein, the proposed project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage.
24 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed May 2024.
162
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 52 September 2025
With respect to the third criterion, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the citywide VMT per capita was calculated to be 24.30. Therefore, the impact threshold of 15 percent below the Citywide average VMT per capita equates to 20.66 VMT per capita. With compliance with Mitigation Measure XVII-1, the proposed project would achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average.

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan.

With respect to the fourth criterion, the proposed project would be subject to the singlefamily residential standards set forth in the current CALGreen Code. Pursuant to the 2022 CALGreen Code, single-family residential projects are required to install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for each unit, which would be suitable for EV charging. Compliance with this requirement would be sufficient to comply with the Tier 2 CALGreen standards, as required by BAAQMD.

As previously noted, CARB prepared the 2022 Scoping Plan, which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan provides suggestions for prioritizing various types of mitigation, such as on-site, GHGreducing design features and mitigation measures. Similar to the 2022 Scoping Plan, BAAQMD has identified the necessary design elements required of new land use projects and plans to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If such design elements are incorporated into the design and construction of a project, then the project would contribute a proportional portion of what is necessary to achieve the State’s climate goals – a “fair share” portion – and a lead agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Based on the above, BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Therefore, if a development project is consistent with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, it can be assumed that the project would also be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Given that the proposed project could be inconsistent with BAAQMD’s standards related to natural gas without implementation of mitigation, the proposed project could conflict with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Conclusion
Based on the above, without the implementation of mitigation, the project may not comply with the BAAQMD’s required thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project could generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

VIII-1. Consistent with the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall demonstrate via project design and/or notation included on project design 163
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 September 2025
that natural gas infrastructure shall be prohibited. Natural gas infrastructure may be allowed if the applicant implements alternative methods that reduce the project’s greenhouse gas emissions in an equally effective or superior manner as would exist without natural gas emission infrastructure.

Conformance with the foregoing requirement shall be confirmed through review and approval of building permit plans by the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division.
164
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 54 September 2025
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
   
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
   
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
   
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
   
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
   
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?     Discussion
a. Residential operations are not typically associated with the routine transport of hazardous materials. Future operations of the proposed residences on the project site could involve the use of 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 that could reasonably be used on the site, routine use and/or disposal of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health 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 a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and the use of 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.
165
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 September 2025
A development project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment should a site contain potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that are not properly addressed prior to project implementation. A REC indicates the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances in, on, or at a property due to any release into the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.25 Various materials historically used in building construction, such as asbestos, lead, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing materials, have been proven to be hazardous to human health upon substantial exposure. If such materials were encountered during project construction, construction workers could be exposed to unsafe materials and/or hazardous materials could be released into the environment. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, the CHRIS records search conducted for the proposed project identified a pair of potentially historic buildings on-site. If either building contained hazardous materials, a potentially significant impact could occur.

However, as discussed throughout this IS/MND, the project site has been subject to mass disturbance through site grading activities. As part of the grading activities associated with the Bacchini Residential Project, all structures were demolished and removed from the project site. Demolition and grading activities were subject to previous mitigation in the 2005 IS to ensure hazardous building materials, such as lead-based paint or asbestos, were removed pursuant to State and local regulations. The project site is currently vacant, and the remnant building foundations would not include hazardous materials. Therefore, because buildings are not currently located within the project site, project construction would not encounter any RECs associated with hazardous building construction materials.

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, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. c. The nearest school relative to the project site is Gehringer Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.80-mile west of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and no impact would occur.
d. Pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker data management system, hazardous materials sites, including leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites and DTSC cleanup sites, do not occur within or adjacent to the project site.26 In addition, the DTSC’s portion of the Cortese List does not identify hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project site.27
25 ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013. 26 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/.

Accessed June 2024. 27 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp. Accessed June 2024. 166
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 56 September 2025
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impact would occur.
e. The nearest airport to the project site is the Byron Airport, located approximately 9.95 miles south of the project site. Therefore, the project site is not located within two miles of any public airports and does not fall within an airport land use Planning Area. Accordingly, no impact would occur related to a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
f. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. In addition, all proposed internal roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. g. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), the project site is not located within a Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).28 In addition, the site is located adjacent to urbanized areas of the City, which precludes the uncontrolled spread of wildland fires.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 28 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed June 2024. 167
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 September 2025
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
   
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;     ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
   
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
   
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?    
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
   
Discussion
a, The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed project’s potential to violate ci-ciii. water quality standards/waste discharge requirements, alter the drainage pattern of the site resulting in erosion or siltation, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrade water quality during construction and operation.

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

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

The City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requires applicants to show proof of coverage under the State’s Construction General Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s Construction General 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 and erosion impacts, 168
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 58 September 2025
as well as non-point source pollution impacts. Because the proposed project would disturb an area of land greater than one acre, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the State’s Construction General Permit and, with implementation of the required SWPPP and BMPs included therein, the proposed project would not result in a violation of water quality standards and/or degradation of water quality.

Furthermore, pursuant to Oakley Municipal Code Sections 6.9.306 and 6.9.404, the proposed project would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan concurrent with submittal of the grading permit application to ensure that water quality is not degraded during construction. The Erosion and Sediment Control plan would include measures to be implemented during grading and would be approved by the City Engineer.

Based on the required submittal and approval of a SWPPP, as well as an erosion and sediment control plan, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction.

Operations
Following completion of project buildout, the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces and landscaped areas, and topsoil would not be exposed. As such, the potential for on-site erosion and the associated impacts to water quality would be reduced.

However, the addition of impervious surfaces would result in the generation of urban runoff during project operations, which could contain pollutants if the runoff encounters vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or landscape fertilizers and herbicides. All municipalities within Contra Costa County (including 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.

The City of Oakley has adopted the County C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development projects that create or alter 10,000 sf or more of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. The proposed project would create 1,167,134 sf of new impervious area. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the County C.3 Stormwater Standards, as well as the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB included in the City’s NPDES General Permit. In addition, the proposed project would adhere to Title 6, Chapter 11, of the City’s Municipal Code, which establishes standards for stormwater management and discharge control. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant would submit a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Compliance with such requirements would ensure that impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would not occur during operation of the proposed project.

A preliminary stormwater management plan has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 6). In order to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed stormwater management plan, the peak flow for the 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events was modeled for the proposed project (see Appendix D).29 The modeling used the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling Software (HEC-HMS) program. In addition, various hydrologic, regulatory, and site constraints were considered when designing the stormwater basin. For example, the peak flow modeling included parameters related to 29 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Summary of Peak Flow Control Modeling for the Stonecreek Subdivision City of Oakley, Contra Costa County, California. November 9, 2023.
169
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 September 2025
groundwater depth and a permanent dewatering pump to meet County guidelines, as well as basin grading, bioretention, and pump configuration.

In compliance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, the project site and adjacent properties were divided into five drainage management areas (DMAs 1 through 5) (see Figure 10). Runoff from impervious surfaces within DMA 1, which encompasses the project site, would be directed to new inlets within the internal roads. From the inlets, new storm drain lines ranging in diameters of 18 to 60 inches would convey flows to discharge through two new outfalls in the new stormwater basin in the northeast portion of the project site. Following treatment in the stormwater basin, flows would be pumped through a new 24-inch storm drain force main to the existing 42-inch storm drain currently stubbed at the northern site boundary. DMAs 2 through 5 are off-site areas included in the model to ensure the on-site stormwater basin design is sufficient for accommodating future residential development in the area, as anticipated by the City’s General Plan.

The modeling output provided peak discharge, runoff volumes, and basin water surface elevations (WSEs) for the 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storms, as summarized in Table

4. The proposed basin storage capacity was optimized to be just below the WSE constraints for area buildout of 17.5 feet for the 10-year storm and 21 feet for the 100-year storm. As shown in the table, the WSEs anticipated following project construction are below the applicable thresholds at 16.72 feet and 19.24 feet for the 10-year and 100-year storms, respectively. In addition, the maximum basin WSEs of 17.40 feet and 20.32 feet for stormwater flows following development pursuant to the City’s General Plan would also fall beneath the applicable 17.5-foot and 21-foot thresholds. Therefore, the stormwater drainage system would have sufficient storage capacity to handle the modeled storms.

Table 4
HEC-HMS Model Summary, 10- and 100-Year Design Storms
Pre-Project Post-Project Area Buildout
10-Year 100 Year 10 Year 100 Year 10 Year 100 Year
Peak Inflow
(cfs) 37.9 78.1 55.3 99.7 71.3 117.2
Total Runoff
(AFY) 2.42 6.65 4.2 10.0 5.7 13.1
Max Basin
WSE (ft) N/A N/A 16.72 19.24 17.40 20.32
Source: Balance Hydrologics, Inc. November 2023.

Conclusion
Based on the above, because the proposed project would comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and applicable requirements set forth in the Oakley Municipal Code, the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, alter the drainage pattern of the site resulting in erosion or siltation, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrade water quality during construction.

Thus, a less-than-significant impact could occur.
170
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 60 September 2025
Figure 10
Modeled Drainage Management Areas
DMA 1- Proposed Stonecreek Subdivision
171
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 September 2025
b,e. Potable water service for the proposed project would be provided by DWD, which operates a groundwater supply system comprised of two wells in the City. Groundwater is then conveyed in a dedicated well supply pipeline to a blending facility.

According to the DWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the wells are connected to the East Contra Costa Subbasin. The Department of Water Resources has designated the East Contra Costa Subbasin as a medium-priority basin that is not in overdraft conditions.30
The project site represents a relatively small area compared to the overall surface area of the East Contra Costa Subbasin. In addition, runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces would be directed to the on-site stormwater drainage management facilities and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. At both locations, runoff water would percolate and recharge the East Contra Costa Subbasin. Therefore, any new impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge within the East Contra Costa Subbasin.

It should be noted that, according to the DWD’s 2020 UWMP, the primary water supply for distribution is treated surface water.31 As a result, any increase in water demand associated with the proposed project would be primarily met through surface water supply, rather than groundwater. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts to groundwater would be further reduced.

Based on the above, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies, interfering substantially with groundwater recharge, or conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. civ. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project site, the project site is located within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X), which is not identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).32 Additionally, pursuant to Section 6.12.138(e) of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to provide adequate drainage to reduce flood hazards. Thus, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows and a lessthan-significant impact would occur. d. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement, whereas a seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir. The project site is located approximately 48 miles from the California coastline and approximately 2.20 miles south of the San Francisco Bay tributaries.

According to the Department of Conservation’s California Tsunami Maps, the project site is not located within a tsunami hazard area.33 Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would be affected by flooding risks associated with tsunamis. Furthermore, seiches do not pose a risk to the proposed project because the tributaries are not closed. As such, the project site is not located adjacent to a large, closed body of water. 30 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 31 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 32 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0360G. Effective March 21, 2017. 33 California Department of Conservation. California Tsunami Maps. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. Accessed June 2024. 172
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 62 September 2025
Overall, the proposed project would not result in a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and no impact would occur. 173
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 September 2025
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
   
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land uses so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the 50.44-acre project site is undeveloped, given that the on-site single-family residence and ancillary structures in the southern portion of the site have been demolished.

Surrounding existing uses include single-family neighborhoods to the north; single-family residences and agricultural uses to the east across Sellers Avenue, as well as to the south; and single-family residential neighborhood to the west. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as RL and RV, and the site is zoned P-1. Therefore, development of the site with the proposed residential uses was anticipated by the City and would not divide an established community. In addition, the proposed project would function as a continuation of the surrounding development and would improve connectivity by providing roadway connections to adjacent parcels.

Overall, the project would not isolate an existing land use nor physically divide an established community, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The project site has two General Plan designations: RL and RV. The RL land use designation allows for a density range of 2.3 to 3.8 dwelling units per gross acre (du/ac), and the RV land use designation allows for a density range of 0.8 to 2.3 du/ac. Based on

39.83 acres of the project site being designated RL and 10.61 acres being designated RV, the combined density of the two land use designations would allow a minimum of 101 units and a maximum of 176 units for the 50.44-acre project site. As proposed, the 176-unit project would fall within the allowed density range. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the site’s RL and RV land use designations, and thus, would not conflict with the City’s General Plan. As demonstrated throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. For example, in compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, the proposed project would be subject to pay all applicable fees prior to construction, and would be required to complete pre-construction surveys for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and migratory birds.

Based on the above, 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, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
174
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 64 September 2025
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
   
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
   
Discussion
a,b. The City of Oakley General Plan EIR states that the only viable mineral resource currently mined in the City of Oakley is sand.34 In addition, the General Plan does not identify any known mineral resource areas within the Planning Area, including the project site.

Furthermore, because the site is located near residential development, the site would not be suitable for mining operations. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral recovery site, and the proposed project would result in no impact related to mineral resources. 34 City of Oakley. City of Oakley 2020 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 278]. September 2002. 175
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 September 2025
XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
   
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?    
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
   
Discussion
a. The following discussion presents information regarding noise standards and criteria applicable to various land uses, as well as sensitive noise receptors in proximity to the project site and the potential for the proposed project to result in impacts during project construction and operation. The following terms are referenced in the sections below:
 Decibel (dB): A unit of sound energy intensity. An A-weighted decibel (dBA) is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. All references to dB in this report will be Aweighted unless noted otherwise.  Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours.
 Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): The average sound level over a given time-period.  Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The maximum sound level over a given time-period.  Median Sound Level (L50): The sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time over a given time-period.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) hours weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of ten prior to averaging.

It should be noted that the existing noise environment in the project vicinity is primarily defined by vehicle traffic along nearby roads, including Sellers Avenue to the east and Sierra Trail Road to the north.

Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residential uses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. The nearest sensitive uses include the existing scattered single-family residential uses located north of the project site, approximately 20 feet from the project site boundaries. In addition, a single-family residence is located approximately 50 feet from the southern project site boundary.
176
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 66 September 2025
Standards of Significance
The City of Oakley General Plan Noise Element establishes a noise level standard of 60 dB as normally acceptable at residential land uses. In addition, General Plan Policy 9.1.6 establishes levels of significance for changes in noise exposure, which are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5
Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure
Ambient Noise Level Without
Project, Ldn
Increase Required for Significant
Impact
<60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: City of Oakley General Plan Noise Element, 2002.

Pursuant to the City’s General Plan’s discussion on non-transportation noise, exterior noise levels at residences should not exceed 55 dBA during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).

The following sections use the aforementioned thresholds of significance to determine if noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project would occur.

Construction Noise
During construction of the proposed project, heavy-duty equipment would be used for demolition, grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would result in temporary noise level increases. Project haul truck traffic on local roadways would also result in a temporary traffic noise level increase during construction activities. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well the equipment is maintained.

In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary depending on the proximity of construction activities to that point. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime hours.

Section 4.2.208 of the City’s Municipal Code restricts noise-producing construction activities to weekday hours between 7:30 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on weekends.

Table 6 shows the predicted construction noise levels for development of the proposed project. Based on the table, activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels up to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest single-family residences are located an average of 400 feet from the proposed construction noisegenerating activities. Typical construction noise sources include exhaust and engine noise from construction vehicles, idling equipment, and power generators. However, because a number of single-family residences abut the project site boundaries and project construction would take place throughout the construction site, maximum noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors during construction would vary day by day and could exceed the City’s applicable 55 dBA threshold.
177
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 September 2025
Table 6
Construction Equipment Noise
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant.

Operational Noise
Residences are not typically associated with the generation of substantial noise. Operation of the proposed project would include typical residential noise, which would be compatible with the surrounding existing uses. The proposed project is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level sufficient enough to increase the existing ambient noise environment at any sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to operational noise.

Based upon the Table 5 criteria, where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. Table 3-1 of the General Plan anticipated 15,000 daily trips on the portion of Sellers Avenue south of Laurel Road, which abuts the project site’s eastern project boundary. Generally, a doubling in traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels by 5.0 dB. As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would be expected to generate an average of 1,697 trips per day. Accordingly, the proposed project would not double traffic volumes on local roadways, and thus, would not substantially increase traffic noise in the project vicinity.

Additionally, the project site is located adjacent to existing residential uses, and the proposed project is consistent with the site’s current land use designations. Therefore, traffic noise level increases associated with the development of single-family residences on the project site have been previously anticipated by the City.

Conclusion
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code.

However, because project construction activities could result in temporary increases in 178
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 68 September 2025
noise levels in the project area in excess of standards established in the local general plan, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-1. Prior to approval of grading permits, the following criteria shall be established and noted on graded plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division:
 Construction activities shall be limited to between the daytime hours of 7:30 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
 Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation.
 When not in use, motorized construction equipment shall not be left idling for more than five minutes.
 Stationary equipment (power generators, compressors, etc.) shall be located at the furthest practical distance from nearby noisesensitive land uses or sufficiently shielded to reduce noise-related impacts.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, while noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, 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 of 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 7, which was developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. 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 primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities, such as grading, utilities placement, and paving.

Table 8 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors. Based on Table 8, construction 179
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 September 2025
vibration levels anticipated for the project would be less than the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold at distances of 26 feet or more.

Table 7
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 previously discussed, the nearest sensitive uses include the single-family residences located north of the project site, approximately 20 feet from the project site boundaries.

Therefore, use of vibratory compactors within 26 feet of the adjacent residential buildings could cause vibrations in excess of 0.2 in/sec PPV.

Because construction activities could expose people to or generate excessive groundbourne vibrations or groundborne noise levels, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Table 8
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 0.031
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.
180
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 70 September 2025
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-2. Throughout the duration of construction, any compaction required within 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures to the north shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers, which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, preconstruction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. Proof of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division for review and approval.
c. The nearest airport to the site is the Byron Airport, located approximately 9.95 miles south of the site. The site is not covered by an existing airport land use plan. Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports. Thus, no impact would occur.
181
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 September 2025
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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)?
   
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of 176 single-family residential units.

Using the City of Oakley General Plan’s average person per household value for singlefamily uses of 3.41, the proposed project would generate approximately 601 additional residents (176 x 3.41 = 600.16).35 The 2023 U.S. Census estimated the population of Oakley to be approximately 45,761.36 An increase in population of 601 residents would constitute an approximately 1.31 percent increase in the City’s population, which is not considered substantial growth. Furthermore, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND, adequate utility infrastructure would be available to support the proposed project. Finally, the population growth generated by the proposed project would not be unplanned, because the proposed project is consistent with the City of Oakley General Plan, which anticipated such development on the project site.

Based on the above, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. b. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project contained a single-family residence and associated ancillary structures. However, all structures have been demolished and removed. In addition, a single residence would not constitute a substantial number of people or housing. As such, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 35 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan Focused General Plan Update [pg. 2-7]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 36 U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia#. Accessed June 2024. 182
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 72 September 2025
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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other Public Facilities?    
Discussion
a. The City of Oakley is located within the former East County Fire Protection District, which was annexed into the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) in July 2022. The CCCFPD provides fire suppression and prevention, emergency medical, rescue, ambulance transport, and public education services.37 Services are provided from 24 fully staffed fire stations and two additional stations staffed with on-call reserve firefighters. The closest station to the project site is Station 93, located approximately 1.85 miles to the northwest. It should be noted that the CCCFPD plans to reopen Station 94, located 0.73-mile southeast of the project site, as a future fire station.

In addition, the proposed project would be subject to participation in a Community Facilities District (CFD) prepared and administered by CCCFPD. Participation in the CFD would mitigate for any increased demands on fire services that may result from the proposed project. Participation in the CFD would also ensure that the project conforms with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.4.2, which requires new developments to pay a fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services. Additionally, the proposed project would not include any alterations to the circulation system of the surrounding area which could conflict with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.4.4, related to emergency service access, or lead to a failure to achieve response time goals.

Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the increased demand for fire services due to on-site residential development was anticipated by the CCCFPD’s planning efforts. In addition, the project would be required to pay development fees in accordance with Chapter 9.2, Article 5 of the Oakley Municipal Code, which would further reduce any impacts related to fire protection services.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause significant degradation to response times or service ratios for the CCCFPD that would induce the need for physically altered or expanded governmental facilities for fire protection services, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
37 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. 2022 Annual Report. Available at: https://www.cccfpd.org/2022- annual-report/. Accessed June 2024.
183
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 September 2025
b. Police protection is provided to the City of Oakley by the Oakley Police Department, which employs various personnel, including a Chief of Police, lieutenants, sergeants, and field officers, such as detectives and patrol officers. Administrative personnel include both partand full-time positions, such as police records assistants, records supervisor, property and evidence technician, and a police services assistant. As previously discussed, the proposed project would result in the development of 176 single-family residences. New residences typically generate a demand for police services; as such, an increase in demand for police services would likely occur with development of the proposed project.

Nevertheless, because the proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designations, the increase in police service demand was included in City’s demand predictions. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the City’s development impact fees, which would provide funds to the Oakley Police Department. Such funds would mitigate any financial impact on the City’s police protection services.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not create an increase demand beyond what has already been anticipated for the site and would not induce the need for physically altered or expanded governmental facilities for police protection services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
c. The Oakley Union Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District provide public educational services to the project site. Given that the proposed project would include development of the project site with 176 single-family residences, the proposed project could increase the demand for schools in the area. Using a standard student generation rate of 0.53 students per dwelling unit, the proposed project’s addition of 176 single-family residences would result in approximately 94 new K-12 students (176 x 0.53 = 93.28).38 The City of Oakley General Plan includes goals and policies set forth to ensure adequate primary and secondary schools are developed in response to population growth. The City expects the General Plan to assist in the goal of providing an efficient and complete educational system for the citizens of Oakley. For example, General Plan Policy 4.6.6 requires the collection of school facility impact fees and further requires that the City shall work with developers and school districts to ensure the availability of adequate school facilities.

The proposed project would be subject to payment of school impact mitigation development fees to fund local school services. 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 Section 65996[b]).

Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer are deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” Therefore, payment of applicable development fees would be sufficient in reducing any impacts associated with an increase in students from the project.

Overall, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding an increase in demand for schools.
38 Antioch Unified School District. Facilities Master Plan [pg. 284]. July 2018. 184
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 74 September 2025
d,e. Section 9.2.208 of the City’s Municipal Code requires five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 601 new residents to the City. As a result, 3.005 acres of parkland would be required (0.005 acres of parkland per resident x 601 new residents =

3.005 acres of parkland). Oakley Resolution 19-03 requires subdividers of City land to dedicate park land and/or pay fees in lieu of the dedication for the neighborhood and community parks. The proposed project would include a 2.43-acre parcel reserved for development of a future park (Parcel B), and a one-acre open space parcel that would function as a setback from Marsh Creek (Parcel A). However, because Parcel B would not be developed as a park as part of the proposed project, the two parcels would not be sufficient to achieve the parkland requirement established by Section 9.2.208. As such, payment of an in-lieu fee, as determined by the City, would be required.

The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR also analyzed impacts of buildout of the General Plan on other public facilities, such as libraries. The Oakley Branch Library is located on the Freedom High School campus at 1050 Neroly Road and is open Tuesday through Saturday. Other libraries in close proximity to the City of Oakley include the Antioch Library and the Brentwood Branch Library. Future residents of the proposed project would have access to the foregoing facilities. The Oakley 2020 General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the necessary General Plan policies, impacts related to public services would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Because the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable park in-lieu fee, and the development of the site was anticipated by the City and would be consistent with the General Plan, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to parks and other public facilities.
185
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 September 2025
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
   
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the proposed project would involve the development of 176 single-family residences, which are anticipated to serve approximately 601 residents. As such, an increase in demand on recreational facilities is anticipated. As previously discussed, Section 9.2.204 of the City’s Municipal Code mandates developments that include subdivision of land to either dedicate parkland or pay fees in lieu of the dedication for the neighborhood and community parks and recreation programs. Three acres of parkland would be required to accommodate the anticipated population increase associated with the proposed project. However, because the proposed project would only develop two acres of parkland, payment of all applicable fees would be required. The park impact fees imposed by the City are used to generate revenue to provide park and recreational services to the City and the general project vicinity.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. Furthermore, the project does not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to recreation would occur.
186
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 76 September 2025
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Discussion
a. Level of Service (LOS) is still currently used by the City of Oakley for purposes of determining consistency with adopted General Plan goals and policies related to LOS.

However, the law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Pursuant to SB 743, VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, and LOS is no longer used for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Please refer to Question “b” for a discussion of VMT.

With respect to General Plan consistency, the proposed project is consistent with the RL and RV General Plan land use designations. Therefore, single-family residential development, such as the proposed project, was considered during the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would be consistent with the LOS findings contained within. More specifically, Tables 3-3 and 3-4 of the General Plan identified specific roads and intersections that need further attention from the City in order to maintain an LOS of “D” or better. The proposed project would not result in substantial alterations to the existing roadway network in the immediate project vicinity, and the streets within the vicinity of the project site were not identified at an existing LOS of F in either table. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable transportation policies and programs as amended pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR.

Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with any General Plan policies related to LOS. The proposed project’s consistency with policies related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities is discussed in further detail below.

Project Trip Generation
The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared by TJKM to identify the proposed project’s potential trip generation and any transportation related impacts associated with such (see Appendix B).39 Project vehicle trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). Based on the ITE rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 1,697 daily vehicle trips, including 125 AM peak hour and 169 PM peak hour trips.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The proposed project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are discussed below.
39 TJKM. Stonecreek Residential Development Oakley, CA Traffic Impact Study. July 17, 2023. Revised November 20, 2023.
187
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 September 2025
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and offstreet paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Sidewalks currently do not exist along the Sellers Avenue frontage to the east.

The closest sidewalk network is located on the termini of Kings Canyon Way and Teton Road at the northern project site boundary.

The proposed project would include the construction of sidewalks within the project site, as well as within the improvement area along the Sellers Avenue frontage east of the site.

All proposed sidewalks within the project site would be five feet in width; the sidewalk constructed as part of the proposed frontage improvements would be six feet wide. All new sidewalks would be required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which would require adequate curb ramps at all sidewalk corners and roadway intersections to provide accessible paths of travel to each residence.

The new sidewalks and curb ramps would enhance the existing pedestrian infrastructure and would comply with all applicable City and ADA standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing pedestrian facilities. Overall, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
Approximately 29 miles of bicycle facilities are installed throughout the City of Oakley, including 15 miles of Class II on-street bicycle lanes and 12.4 miles of Class I multi-use paths.40 The nearest existing bicycle facilities to the project site is the Class I bicycle facility provided along Marsh Creek as part of the Marsh Creek Regional Trail, which can be accessed through Laurel Road approximately 0.43-mile north of the project site. Class II bicycle facilities are also located on Laurel Road between Harvest Drive and Main Street, as well as on Main Street between Laurel Road and Simoni Ranch Road (approximately

0.73-mile northwest of the project site). Additionally, the City’s General Plan and the City of Oakley Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan 202041 indicate that several new bicycle facilities are planned to be constructed in the project vicinity.

Based on the above, bicycle facilities would be accessible from the project site, and development of the project would not interfere with the future construction of any planned bicycle trails. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing bicycle facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to bicycle facilities.

Transit Facilities
Tri-Delta Transit provides transit services in the City of Oakley and operates three lines connecting Brentwood and the Pittsburg/Bay Point Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station.

The following Tri-Delta Transit Routes currently operate in the project vicinity:
 Route 300: the Antioch BART/Brentwood Park & Ride route is a weekday express route connecting Brentwood to the Antioch BART station through the City of 40 City of Oakley. City of Oakley General Plan Focused General Plan Update [pg. 3-18]. Adopted January 11, 2022. 41 City of Oakley. Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Summer 2007. 188
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 78 September 2025
Oakley. The route travels along Main Street and operates from 4:00 AM to approximately 8:00 PM with 15 to 30-minute headways.
 Route 383: the Blue Goose Park/Antioch BART route, connects the City of Oakley to the City of Antioch, as well as connecting to Blue Goose Park on Adams Lane in the City of Brentwood. The route provides weekday service on both clockwise and counterclockwise directions. The counterclockwise route runs with approximate one-hour headways, and the clockwise route runs twice during the AM peak hour period only.
 Route 391: the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route provides weekday service to most East County cities. Route 391 operates from 4:06 AM to 1:28 AM with headways that range between 30 and 74 minutes.

The project is located approximately 0.66-mile from the closest bus stops, which are located west of the project site on Main Street. The bus stops are accessible by way of existing sidewalks and Class II bike lanes provided on Main Street. The proposed project is not anticipated to add a significant number of passengers to the existing bus services capacity. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site; therefore, potential impacts related to transit were already anticipated by the City.

Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the above, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Although the City of Oakley has not yet established any standards or thresholds regarding VMT, pursuant to Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the most appropriate method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Rather, Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of CEQA transportation impact analysis from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the physical impact of driving.

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) considers residential projects to have a significant impact on VMT if the project generated home-based VMT per resident is higher than the following:
 85 percent of the home-based VMT per resident; or
 85 percent of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident. 189
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 September 2025
As part of a VMT Analysis Memorandum (VMT Memo) prepared for the proposed project, TJKM used the CCTA model to conduct a VMT analysis for the project (see Appendix E).42 Two model runs were performed in accordance with the CCTA VMT methodology. The first model run was for Baseline Conditions, which represents the Year 2018 traffic conditions for the City, and the second model run was for Baseline Plus Project Conditions.

Under Baseline conditions, the home-based VMT per capita for the City was 24.30 VMT per capita. Therefore, in order for the proposed project to have a less-than-significant impact, the project must produce VMT within the 85 percent threshold, which equates to

20.66 (0.85 x 24.30) VMT per capita. The proposed project includes various VMT reduction design measures, including constructing bicycle facilities and expanding the local bikeway network. Consistent with the foregoing reduction measures, the proposed project includes full sidewalks and direct connections to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail through Court A and the setback within Parcel A. Under Baseline Plus Project Conditions, the VMT per capita for the project is 23.46, which exceeds the 20.66 VMT threshold.

According to the VMT Memo, the aforementioned design features result in a total VMT reduction of 7.7 percent. However, the proposed project would require a VMT per capita total reduction of 12 percent to meet the 20.66 VMT threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would require further measures to achieve an additional 4.3 percent VMT reduction to meet the applicable VMT threshold.

Based on the above, the proposed project could conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Because the proposed project would require an additional 4.3 percent VMT reduction, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Planning Report was prepared for the proposed project by TDM Specialists, Inc.43 The recommended measures included in the TDM Planning Report were determined to result in a VMT reduction ranging from a minimum of four percent to a maximum of 10.5 percent. Mitigation Measure XVII-1 requires a minimum 4.3 percent VMT reduction, such that implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XVII-1. Prior to commencement of project construction activities, the project applicant shall implement the following feasible mitigation measures to accomplish a minimum 4.3 percent VMT reduction. The following measures are sourced from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2010 Handbook for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the City of Oakley Planning and Zoning Division.

1. Provide Class II bicycle racks for guests within the proposed park area (Parcel B). The VMT reduction achievable with this strategy ranges between one and four percent.

2. Based on available space, provide one to two Class I secure bicycle parking space(s) in the garage of each proposed residence, 42 TJKM. Stonecreek TIS VMT Analysis Memo. November 22, 2024. 43 TDM Specialists, Inc. Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project, TDM Planning. June 9, 2025. 190
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 80 September 2025
consistent with CAPCOA Measure T-33. The VMT reduction
achievable with this strategy ranges from two to five percent.

3. Consistent with CAPCOA Measures TRT-1 and T-6, prepare a new resident trip reduction welcome packet with a commuter resource flier and information links (including transit schedules, bike maps, and 511 Contra Costa resources) to introduce new residents to local sustainable transportation initiatives. The VMT reduction achievable with this strategy ranges from one to 1.5 percent. c,d. Primary access to the project site is proposed from Sellers Avenue, with additional connections to Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way to the north. According to the site plan, each street within the proposed internal roadway network would be 36 feet wide. The proposed roadway widths would adequately accommodate emergency vehicle access.

The proposed project would not alter the existing transportation network nor increase hazards due to a geometrical design feature. Oncoming traffic travelling northbound and southbound on Sellers Avenue would have a clear line of sight to vehicles exiting the project site for at least 150 feet, and obstructions to sight distance are not anticipated.

During project construction, public roads in the vicinity would remain open and available for use by emergency vehicles and other traffic. In addition, the new internal roadways would provide three points of access to the project site, which would be sufficient for emergency vehicle access. All interior drive aisles and parking stalls would comply with City design standards. Therefore, on-site circulation would be expected to function acceptably for emergency response vehicles and would not impede current response times to the project site.

Implementation of the proposed project would introduce additional vehicle traffic along Sellers Avenue. However, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the site, impacts related to hazards and emergency access have already been anticipated by the City. In addition, the proposed improvements to the Sellers Avenue frontage would not obstruct the existing sight distance, ensuring drivers would have sufficient views of traffic.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 191
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 September 2025
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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
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).
   
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.
   
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, a records search of the CHRIS, was completed on June 10, 2024, by the NWIC for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project site. The CHRIS search indicated that the project site does not contain recorded archaeological resources. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a records search of the Sacred Land File (SLF) on June 12, 2024. Based on the results of the NAHC SLF search, the project site does not contain known tribal cultural resources. Although a moderate to high potential exists for unrecorded tribal cultural resources to be found within the site due to the project site’s proximity to local aquatic resources, where such tribal cultural resources have been found throughout the County, surface artifacts would not occur on-site due to the mass disturbance associated with the 2006 site grading.

In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), a project notification letter was distributed to the chairpersons of the following tribes on August 23, 2024: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Nashville Enterprise Miwok- Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, North Valley Yokuts Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and The Confederated Villages of Lisjan.

Three responses from the foregoing tribes were received within the consultation period:
one from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, and the Indian Canyon Band of Costanoan Ohlone People. The City consulted with all three tribes, including sending the requested information and meeting with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation on September 25, 2024.

Consultation with all tribes has since been closed.

Based on the history of disturbance and the lack of previously recorded tribal cultural resources at the project site, tribal cultural resources are not expected to occur within the site. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that development of the proposed project could 192
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 82 September 2025
result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource if previously unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during grading or other ground-disturbing activities. Thus, a potentially significant impact related to tribal cultural resources could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
193
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 September 2025
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
   
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
   
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
   
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
   
Discussion
a-c. Electricity, telecommunications, water, and sanitary sewer services would be provided to the project site by way of new connections to existing infrastructure in the immediate project area. Brief discussions of water, sewer service, stormwater drainage, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project are included below.

Water
The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch water lines throughout the project site within the internal roadway network, and would connect to the existing water main in Sierra Trail Road to the north.

Water service for the proposed project would be provided by DWD. Pursuant to the DWD’s 2020 UWMP, DWD’s primary water supply for the distribution system is treated surface water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project (CVP), which is purchased from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Water is conveyed through the Contra Costa Canal and Los Vaqueros systems, and treated at the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant in the City of Oakley, which is jointly owned by DWD and CCWD.44 According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the DWD has a baseline demand of 177 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).45 Thus, the project is projected to increase water demand by 106,377 gallons per day (177 gallons per capita x 601 residents), or 119.16 AFY. 44 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 45 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 3-5]. June 2021. 194
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 84 September 2025
According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the DWD’s projected water supply exceeds the anticipated water demand for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years until at least the year 2040.46 For example, during a normal year in 2025, the anticipated supply exceeds the anticipated demand by 4,965 AFY. Therefore, the DWD would have sufficient water supply to accommodate the 119.16 AFY increase associated with the proposed project.

Furthermore, because the proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designations, the project site has been anticipated for single-family residential development by the City. Because the DWD’s demand estimates included the increases in demand related to buildout of the City’s General Plan, the DWD has anticipated an increased water demand due to development of the project site compared to existing conditions.47
Wastewater
The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch sanitary sewer lines throughout the project site, as well as six-inch and 24-inch sanitary sewer force mains in the northern portion of the project site within Street A. The proposed sanitary sewer system would direct wastewater from the proposed residences to the existing eight-inch sanitary sewer main within Sierra Trail Road, to the north of the project site.

Sanitary sewer services would be provided to the project site by ISD, which operates and maintains a sewer system comprised of collection, treatment, and effluent recycling facilities. The existing sewer system collects wastewater flows from individual developments within the City and conveys them to ISD’s Water Recycling Facility.

Wastewater is ultimately treated and stored either at the facility in a 76 million gallon holding pond, or the treated water outfalls in the San Joaquin River. The Water Recycling Facility has an average daily flow of 2.3 million gallons per day (MGD) and a treatment capacity of approximately 4.3 MGD.48
Using standard industry assumptions, where domestic water use represents 40 percent of consumption and wastewater generation represents 90 percent of domestic water use, the proposed project would generate approximately 38,232 gallons of wastewater per day (106,200 gallons x 0.4 x 0.9). The addition of wastewater from the proposed project would represent approximately 0.89 percent of the Water Recycling Facility’s available capacity.

Therefore, the Water Recycling Facility would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project.

Furthermore, given that the project is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation, the type and intensity of growth and associated wastewater generation has already been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

Therefore, given the available capacity within the wastewater facility, development of the proposed project would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities, and the existing facilities would have the capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the existing commitments. 46 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 5-5 to 5-6]. June 2021. 47 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 2-2]. June 2021. 48 Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan [pg. I-3]. Updated April 2017. 195
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 September 2025
Stormwater
As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would be directed towards the on-site detention basin.

The proposed on-site drainage systems would be required to comply with the City’s SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, as well as the County C.3 standards.

Additionally, because the site has been anticipated for development by the City’s General Plan, impacts to stormwater systems resulting from development of the site have been anticipated by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly increase stormwater flows into ISD’s existing system such that the construction of new or expansion of existing stormwater facilities would be required.

Electricity and Telecommunications
Electricity and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. PG&E would provide electricity services to the project site, while AT&T would provide telecommunication services. The proposed project would not require major upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts related to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Furthermore, adequate wastewater capacity would also be available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to ISD’s existing commitments. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material from the City of Oakley is hauled to Potrero Hills Landfill, located in Solano County. The landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 4,330 tons per day. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Potrero Hills Landfill has a remaining capacity of 13,872,000 cubic yards out of a total permitted capacity of 83,100,000 cubic yards.49 Due to the substantial amount of available capacity remaining at Potrero Hills Landfill (83.3 percent of total capacity), sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Additionally, because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designations, impacts related to solid waste resulting from development of the site have already been anticipated by the City. Furthermore, pursuant to the CALGreen Code, all projects are required to divert at least 65 percent diversion of construction waste, thereby further reducing the amount of solid waste the proposed project would create.

Based on the above, the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste. 49 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary: Potrero Hill Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3591. Accessed June 2024.
196
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 86 September 2025
XX. WILDFIRE.

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   
Discussion
a-d. According to the CALFIRE FRAP, the project site is not located within a Very High or High FHSZ.50 In addition, the project site is located near existing development and roadways.

The presence of urban development and paved areas would preclude the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial risks or hazards related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 50 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available at: https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html. Accessed June 2024. 197
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 September 2025
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
   
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
   
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while a limited potential exists for the western burrowing owl as well as nesting raptors and migratory birds protected by the MBTA to occur on-site, the proposed project would comply with all applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements, which would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the project site does not contain any historical structures or known cultural resources. As a result, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to historic or archaeological resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2 would ensure that, in the event that cultural resources are discovered within the project site, such resources would be protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and other State standards.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. In conjunction with other development within the City of Oakley, the proposed project could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project development would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included herein, as well as applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other State and local regulations.

All cumulative impacts related to air quality, noise, and transportation are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Given the scope of the project in comparison to buildout of the City’s planning area, any incremental 198
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Project
Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 88 September 2025
effects would not be considerable relative to the effects of all past, current, and probably future projects. In addition, based on the existing land use designations, development of the project site with residential uses and the associated potential impacts have already been anticipated by the City. Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, with the implementation of mitigation, development of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, other applicable State and local regulations, and mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section XIII, Noise, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to hazardous materials and noise. Therefore, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
199
Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CalEEMod Results 200
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
1 / 86
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 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 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
201
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
2 / 86

3.3. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2027) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2027) - 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 (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.18. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

3.19. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
202
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
3 / 86

3.20. 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
203
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
4 / 86

4.5.1. Unmitigated

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 204
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
5 / 86

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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
205
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
6 / 86

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. 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
206
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
7 / 86

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

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
207
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
8 / 86

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

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
208
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
9 / 86

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stonecreek Subdivision 9647
Construction Start Date 3/1/2026
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency City of Oakley
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 20.6
Location 37.9773681063306, -121.68147736624323
County Contra Costa
City Oakley
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1362
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.25

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
209
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
10 / 86
Single Family
Housing
176 Dwelling Unit 50.4 343,200 925,500 — 509 —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.37 Acre 0.37 0.00 8,058 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power

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. 11.7 11.5 29.2 29.5 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,449 5,449 0.22 0.12 3.25 5,470 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.7 11.5 29.2 29.4 0.06 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 6,753 6,753 0.27 0.12 0.08 6,778 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.36 8.17 17.4 17.5 0.03 0.74 11.8 12.6 0.68 6.05 6.73 — 3,246 3,246 0.13 0.08 0.90 3,258 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.53 1.49 3.18 3.20 0.01 0.14 2.16 2.29 0.12 1.10 1.23 — 537 537 0.02 0.01 0.15 539 -------------------
210
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
11 / 86

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.80 3.20 29.2 29.5 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,449 5,449 0.22 0.05 0.56 5,470 2027 11.7 11.5 11.0 17.2 0.03 0.36 0.76 1.12 0.33 0.18 0.52 — 3,664 3,664 0.14 0.12 3.25 3,706 2028 11.7 11.4 10.5 17.0 0.03 0.32 0.76 1.08 0.30 0.18 0.48 — 3,641 3,641 0.14 0.09 2.92 3,676 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.80 3.20 29.2 29.4 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,436 5,436 0.22 0.05 0.01 5,456 2027 11.7 11.5 28.0 28.8 0.06 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 6,753 6,753 0.27 0.12 0.08 6,778 2028 11.7 11.4 10.5 16.6 0.03 0.32 0.76 1.08 0.30 0.18 0.48 — 3,588 3,588 0.14 0.12 0.08 3,626 2029 11.6 11.4 10.1 16.4 0.03 0.30 0.76 1.06 0.27 0.18 0.45 — 3,564 3,564 0.14 0.12 0.07 3,602 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.27 1.91 17.4 17.5 0.03 0.74 11.8 12.6 0.68 6.05 6.73 — 3,246 3,246 0.13 0.03 0.14 3,258 2027 6.41 6.17 10.3 13.5 0.02 0.38 2.54 2.91 0.35 1.07 1.42 — 2,955 2,955 0.12 0.07 0.77 2,980 2028 8.36 8.17 7.52 11.8 0.02 0.23 0.54 0.77 0.21 0.13 0.34 — 2,574 2,574 0.10 0.08 0.90 2,602 2029 1.19 1.17 0.81 1.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.04 — 286 286 0.01 0.01 0.09 289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.41 0.35 3.18 3.20 0.01 0.14 2.16 2.29 0.12 1.10 1.23 — 537 537 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 539 2027 1.17 1.13 1.87 2.47 < 0.005 0.07 0.46 0.53 0.06 0.20 0.26 — 489 489 0.02 0.01 0.13 493 2028 1.53 1.49 1.37 2.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.06 — 426 426 0.02 0.01 0.15 431 2029 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 47.3 47.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 47.8 -------------------
211
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
12 / 86

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.80 3.20 29.2 29.5 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,449 5,449 0.22 0.05 0.56 5,470 2027 11.7 11.5 11.0 17.2 0.03 0.36 0.76 1.12 0.33 0.18 0.52 — 3,664 3,664 0.14 0.12 3.25 3,706 2028 11.7 11.4 10.5 17.0 0.03 0.32 0.76 1.08 0.30 0.18 0.48 — 3,641 3,641 0.14 0.09 2.92 3,676 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.80 3.20 29.2 29.4 0.05 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 — 5,436 5,436 0.22 0.05 0.01 5,456 2027 11.7 11.5 28.0 28.8 0.06 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 6,753 6,753 0.27 0.12 0.08 6,778 2028 11.7 11.4 10.5 16.6 0.03 0.32 0.76 1.08 0.30 0.18 0.48 — 3,588 3,588 0.14 0.12 0.08 3,626 2029 11.6 11.4 10.1 16.4 0.03 0.30 0.76 1.06 0.27 0.18 0.45 — 3,564 3,564 0.14 0.12 0.07 3,602 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.27 1.91 17.4 17.5 0.03 0.74 11.8 12.6 0.68 6.05 6.73 — 3,246 3,246 0.13 0.03 0.14 3,258 2027 6.41 6.17 10.3 13.5 0.02 0.38 2.54 2.91 0.35 1.07 1.42 — 2,955 2,955 0.12 0.07 0.77 2,980 2028 8.36 8.17 7.52 11.8 0.02 0.23 0.54 0.77 0.21 0.13 0.34 — 2,574 2,574 0.10 0.08 0.90 2,602 2029 1.19 1.17 0.81 1.32 < 0.005 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.04 — 286 286 0.01 0.01 0.09 289 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.41 0.35 3.18 3.20 0.01 0.14 2.16 2.29 0.12 1.10 1.23 — 537 537 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 539 2027 1.17 1.13 1.87 2.47 < 0.005 0.07 0.46 0.53 0.06 0.20 0.26 — 489 489 0.02 0.01 0.13 493 2028 1.53 1.49 1.37 2.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.06 — 426 426 0.02 0.01 0.15 431 2029 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 47.3 47.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 47.8 -------------------
212
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
13 / 86

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. 16.4 15.6 9.38 62.4 0.16 0.49 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 20,278 20,356 8.70 0.54 37.5 20,772 Mit. 16.4 15.6 9.38 62.4 0.16 0.49 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 19,669 19,747 8.61 0.53 37.5 20,158 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3% 3% 1% 2% — 3%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 15.2 14.4 10.0 47.8 0.15 0.48 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 19,343 19,421 8.76 0.59 3.37 19,820 Mit. 15.2 14.4 10.0 47.8 0.15 0.48 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 18,735 18,813 8.67 0.58 3.37 19,205 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 3% 3% 1% 2% — 3%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 15.2 14.6 6.93 50.2 0.14 0.25 12.4 12.6 0.25 3.13 3.38 78.0 15,847 15,925 8.67 0.56 17.6 16,328 Mit. 15.2 14.6 6.93 50.2 0.14 0.25 12.4 12.6 0.25 3.13 3.38 78.0 15,239 15,317 8.57 0.55 17.6 15,713 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4% 4% 1% 2% — 4%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.78 2.67 1.26 9.16 0.02 0.05 2.25 2.30 0.05 0.57 0.62 12.9 2,624 2,637 1.44 0.09 2.91 2,703 Mit. 2.78 2.67 1.26 9.16 0.02 0.05 2.25 2.30 0.05 0.57 0.62 12.9 2,523 2,536 1.42 0.09 2.91 2,602 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4% 4% 1% 2% — 4%
-------------------
213
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
14 / 86

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 6.23 5.75 4.31 50.2 0.13 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 13,269 13,269 0.47 0.49 35.0 13,461 Area 9.93 9.71 3.01 11.3 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,733 3,733 0.07 0.01 — 3,736 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 3,216 3,216 0.33 0.02 — 3,229 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 16.4 15.6 9.38 62.4 0.16 0.49 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 20,278 20,356 8.70 0.54 37.5 20,772 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.94 5.44 5.07 45.7 0.12 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 12,361 12,361 0.53 0.54 0.91 12,535 Area 9.01 8.84 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 3,216 3,216 0.33 0.02 — 3,229 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 15.2 14.4 10.0 47.8 0.15 0.48 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 19,343 19,421 8.76 0.59 3.37 19,820 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.88 5.39 4.76 44.4 0.12 0.08 12.4 12.4 0.07 3.13 3.21 — 12,467 12,467 0.50 0.52 15.1 12,648 Area 9.13 9.10 0.12 4.97 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 3,216 3,216 0.33 0.02 — 3,229 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 -------------------
214
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
15 / 86
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 15.2 14.6 6.93 50.2 0.14 0.25 12.4 12.6 0.25 3.13 3.38 78.0 15,847 15,925 8.67 0.56 17.6 16,328 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094 Area 1.67 1.66 0.02 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 532 532 0.05 < 0.005 — 535 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Total 2.78 2.67 1.26 9.16 0.02 0.05 2.25 2.30 0.05 0.57 0.62 12.9 2,624 2,637 1.44 0.09 2.91 2,703

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 6.23 5.75 4.31 50.2 0.13 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 13,269 13,269 0.47 0.49 35.0 13,461 Area 9.93 9.71 3.01 11.3 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,733 3,733 0.07 0.01 — 3,736 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 16.4 15.6 9.38 62.4 0.16 0.49 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 19,669 19,747 8.61 0.53 37.5 20,158 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.94 5.44 5.07 45.7 0.12 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 12,361 12,361 0.53 0.54 0.91 12,535 -------------------
215
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
16 / 86
Area 9.01 8.84 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 15.2 14.4 10.0 47.8 0.15 0.48 12.5 13.0 0.48 3.17 3.65 78.0 18,735 18,813 8.67 0.58 3.37 19,205 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.88 5.39 4.76 44.4 0.12 0.08 12.4 12.4 0.07 3.13 3.21 — 12,467 12,467 0.50 0.52 15.1 12,648 Area 9.13 9.10 0.12 4.97 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Energy 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total 15.2 14.6 6.93 50.2 0.14 0.25 12.4 12.6 0.25 3.13 3.38 78.0 15,239 15,317 8.57 0.55 17.6 15,713 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094 Area 1.67 1.66 0.02 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 432 432 0.04 < 0.005 — 433 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Total 2.78 2.67 1.26 9.16 0.02 0.05 2.25 2.30 0.05 0.57 0.62 12.9 2,523 2,536 1.42 0.09 2.91 2,602

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
216
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
17 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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

2.23 1.88 17.4 17.2 0.03 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 3,162 3,162 0.13 0.03 — 3,173 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 11.7 11.7 — 6.03 6.03 — — — — — — —
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 -------------------
217
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
18 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 0.34 3.18 3.14 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.12 — 0.12 — 524 524 0.02 < 0.005 — 525 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.14 2.14 — 1.10 1.10 — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 154 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 140 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 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 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 0.06 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 0.00 218
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
19 / 86

3.2. Site Preparation (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-Road
Equipment

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

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

2.23 1.88 17.4 17.2 0.03 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 3,162 3,162 0.13 0.03 — 3,173 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 11.7 11.7 — 6.03 6.03 — — — — — — —
-------------------
219
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
20 / 86
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-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 151 151 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 154 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 140 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 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.5 83.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 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 0.06 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 0.00220 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
21 / 86
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. Site Preparation (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.63 3.05 28.0 28.3 0.05 1.17 — 1.17 1.08 — 1.08 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.21 0.17 1.59 1.60 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.12 1.12 — 0.57 0.57 — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.9 -------------------
221
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
22 / 86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 138 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.79 7.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.90 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.31 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

3.4. Site Preparation (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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
222
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
23 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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

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

0.04 0.03 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.8 49.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
223
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
24 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 138 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.79 7.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.90 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 1.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.31 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

3.5. Grading (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.51 2.95 25.6 27.3 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 -------------------
224
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
25 / 86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.38 0.32 2.80 2.99 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 723 723 0.03 0.01 — 726 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.01 1.01 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.51 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 120 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.18 0.18 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 157 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 0.00225 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
26 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.4 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.85 2.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.89 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

3.6. Grading (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.51 2.95 25.6 27.3 0.06 1.04 — 1.04 0.96 — 0.96 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.38 0.32 2.80 2.99 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 — 723 723 0.03 0.01 — 726 -------------------
226
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
27 / 86
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.01 1.01 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 157 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17.4 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.85 2.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.89 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 0.00227 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
28 / 86
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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

0.64 0.53 4.85 6.68 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,238 1,238 0.05 0.01 — 1,243 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-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.89 1.22 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 205 205 0.01 < 0.005 — 206 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
228
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
29 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.13 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 537 537 0.01 0.02 1.83 546 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.61 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 489 489 0.03 0.07 1.06 512 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 0.20 0.18 0.16 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 492 492 0.01 0.02 0.05 499 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.64 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 489 489 0.03 0.07 0.03 512 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 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 257 257 0.01 0.01 0.41 261 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 253 253 0.01 0.04 0.24 264 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 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.5 42.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 43.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.8 41.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 43.8 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)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 229
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
30 / 86
Off-Road 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 Equipment
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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

0.64 0.53 4.85 6.68 0.01 0.17— 0.17 0.16— 0.16— 1,238 1,238 0.05 0.01— 1,243 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-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.10 0.89 1.22 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 205 205 0.01 < 0.005— 206 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 0.21 0.19 0.13 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12— 537 537 0.01 0.02 1.83 546 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.61 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04— 489 489 0.03 0.07 1.06 512 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 0.20 0.18 0.16 1.97 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12— 492 492 0.01 0.02 0.05 499 230
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
31 / 86
Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.64 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 489 489 0.03 0.07 0.03 512 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 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 257 257 0.01 0.01 0.41 261 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.32 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 253 253 0.01 0.04 0.24 264 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 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 42.5 42.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 43.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.8 41.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 43.8 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

3.9. 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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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 -------------------
231
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
32 / 86
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.12 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 528 528 0.01 < 0.005 1.65 531 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 477 477 0.02 0.07 0.94 499 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 0.20 0.18 0.16 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 483 483 0.01 0.02 0.04 490 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 477 477 0.02 0.07 0.02 499 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 0.14 0.13 0.10 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 350 350 0.01 0.01 0.51 355 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.43 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 342 342 0.02 0.05 0.29 357 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 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 57.9 57.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 58.7 232
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
33 / 86
Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.6 56.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.1 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

3.10. 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

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 -------------------
233
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
34 / 86
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.12 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 528 528 0.01 < 0.005 1.65 531 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 477 477 0.02 0.07 0.94 499 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 0.20 0.18 0.16 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 483 483 0.01 0.02 0.04 490 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.61 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 477 477 0.02 0.07 0.02 499 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 0.14 0.13 0.10 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 350 350 0.01 0.01 0.51 355 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.43 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 342 342 0.02 0.05 0.29 357 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 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 57.9 57.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 58.7 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 56.6 56.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 59.1 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

3.11. 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)
------------------- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 234
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
35 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.67 1.01 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 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-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.17 0.14 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 474 474 0.01 0.02 0.04 481 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 464 464 0.02 0.07 0.02 485 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.5 37.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 38.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 38.0 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 0.00235 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
36 / 86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.22 6.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.31 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.01 6.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.29 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.08 0.67 1.01 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 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-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
236
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
37 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.17 0.14 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 474 474 0.01 0.02 0.04 481 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.58 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 464 464 0.02 0.07 0.02 485 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.5 37.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 38.1 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.3 36.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 38.0 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.22 6.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.31 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.01 6.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.29 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 (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-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
237
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
38 / 86
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-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 41.4 41.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.5 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.85 6.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.88 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 127 127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 129 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
238
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
39 / 86
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 116 116 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 118 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.22 3.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.27 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 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 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 (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-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.88 0.74 6.94 9.95 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 -------------------
239
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
40 / 86
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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.19 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 41.4 41.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.5 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 127 127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.43 129 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 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 116 116 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 118 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.22 3.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.27240 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
41 / 86
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 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 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 (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-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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 -------------------
241
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
42 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 65.3 65.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.5 Architect
ural
Coatings

4.93 4.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.90 0.90 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 109 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 98.3 98.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 99.7 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 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.6 48.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.3242 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
43 / 86
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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.17 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 (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-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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 -------------------
243
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
44 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 65.3 65.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.5 Architect
ural
Coatings

4.93 4.93 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.90 0.90 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 109 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 98.3 98.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 99.7 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 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.6 48.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 49.3244 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
45 / 86
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 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.05 8.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.17 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 (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-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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 -------------------
245
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
46 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

7.22 7.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

1.32 1.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 106 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.6 96.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.9 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 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 70.9246 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
47 / 86
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 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 (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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 -------------------
247
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
48 / 86
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

7.22 7.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

1.32 1.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33 106 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.6 96.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 97.9 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 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 70.9248 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
49 / 86
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.6 11.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.7 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 (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

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
Coatings

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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.07 1.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
249
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
50 / 86
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
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.19 0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 96.3 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 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

3.20. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
250
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
51 / 86
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 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
Coatings

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

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2 Architect
ural
Coatings

1.07 1.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.34 2.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.34 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.19 0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
251
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
52 / 86
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 96.3 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.1 10.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.68 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.70 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

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
252
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
53 / 86
Single
Family
Housing

6.23 5.75 4.31 50.2 0.13 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 13,269 13,269 0.47 0.49 35.0 13,461 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 6.23 5.75 4.31 50.2 0.13 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 13,269 13,269 0.47 0.49 35.0 13,461 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

5.94 5.44 5.07 45.7 0.12 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 12,361 12,361 0.53 0.54 0.91 12,535 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 5.94 5.44 5.07 45.7 0.12 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 12,361 12,361 0.53 0.54 0.91 12,535 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094 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 1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
253
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
54 / 86
Single 6.23 5.75 4.31 50.2 0.13 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 13,269 13,269 0.47 0.49 35.0 13,461 Family
Housing
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

5.94 5.44 5.07 45.7 0.12 0.08 12.5 12.6 0.07 3.17 3.25 — 12,361 12,361 0.53 0.54 0.91 12,535 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094 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 1.07 0.98 0.87 8.09 0.02 0.01 2.25 2.27 0.01 0.57 0.59 — 2,064 2,064 0.08 0.09 2.51 2,094

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 254
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
55 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 608 608 0.10 0.01 — 614
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 101 101 0.02 < 0.005 — 102

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 255
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
56 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005

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 256
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
57 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 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 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 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 0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 432 432 0.04 < 0.005 — 433 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 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 432 432 0.04 < 0.005 — 433

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 257
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
58 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing

0.24 0.12 2.05 0.87 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,607 2,607 0.23 < 0.005 — 2,614 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 432 432 0.04 < 0.005 — 433 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 0.04 0.02 0.37 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 432 432 0.04 < 0.005 — 433

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) 258
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
59 / 86
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 0.34 0.17 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Consum
er
Products

7.35 7.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

1.33 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.91 0.87 0.09 10.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.8 Total 9.93 9.71 3.01 11.3 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,733 3,733 0.07 0.01 — 3,736 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.34 0.17 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Consum
er
Products

7.35 7.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

1.33 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 9.01 8.84 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 15.1 15.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.1 Consum
er
Products

1.34 1.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
259
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
60 / 86
Architect 0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.08 0.08 0.01 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.18 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.19 Total 1.67 1.66 0.02 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.34 0.17 2.92 1.24 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.24 — 0.24 0.00 3,706 3,706 0.07 0.01 — 3,710 Consum
er
Products

7.35 7.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

1.33 1.33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

7.35 7.35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
260
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
61 / 86
Architect
Coatings

1.34 1.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.24 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.4 72.7 1.27 0.03 — 114
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 261
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
62 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.4 72.7 1.27 0.03 — 114
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.0 0.21 0.01 — 18.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.9

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.4 72.7 1.27 0.03 — 114
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 262
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
63 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.4 72.7 1.27 0.03 — 114
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.27 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.3 60.7 72.9 1.27 0.03 — 114 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.0 0.21 0.01 — 18.8
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 10.0 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.9

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
263
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
64 / 86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230264 Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
65 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 65.7 0.00 65.7 6.57 0.00 — 230 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.9 0.00 10.9 1.09 0.00 — 38.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
265
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
66 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 2.46
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
266
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
67 / 86
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.41 0.41

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
267
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
68 / 86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 268
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
69 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) 269
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
70 / 86
Equipme
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 270
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
71 / 86
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
271
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
72 / 86
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 272
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
73 / 86
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 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
273
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
74 / 86
Sequest——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
274
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
75 / 86

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 3/2/2026 1/29/2027 5.00 240 — Grading Grading 2/1/2027 3/26/2027 5.00 40.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/12/2027 2/9/2029 5.00 480 — Paving Paving 3/29/2027 4/9/2027 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/26/2027 2/23/2029 5.00 480 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

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/Backh
oes
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/Backh
oes
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 0.45 275
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
76 / 86
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh 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/Backh
oes
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/Backh
oes
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/Backh
oes
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 0.48 276
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
77 / 86

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 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 63.4 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 18.8 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 12.7 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
277
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
78 / 86
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 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 63.4 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 18.8 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 12.7 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
278
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
79 / 86
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 694,980 231,660 0.00 0.00 967

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 360 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 120 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.31

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 1.94 0%
279
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
80 / 86
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.37 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
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
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,697 1,697 1,697 619,274 17,734 17,734 17,734 6,472,945 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 Single Family
Housing
1,697 1,697 1,697 619,274 17,734 17,734 17,734 6,472,945 Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources
280
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
81 / 86

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 176
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces0
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing—
Wood Fireplaces0
Gas Fireplaces 176
Propane Fireplaces0
Electric Fireplaces0
No Fireplaces0
Conventional Wood Stoves0
Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves0
Pellet Wood Stoves0
281
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
82 / 86

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)
694980 231,660 0.00 0.00 967

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
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) Single Family Housing 1,088,535 204 0.0330 0.0040 8,135,058 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) 282
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
83 / 86
Single Family Housing < 0.005 204 0.0330 0.0040 8,135,058 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,405,049 13,500,639
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 96,173

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,405,049 13,500,639
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 96,173

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 122 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 122 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
283
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
84 / 86

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

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

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

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources
284
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
85 / 86

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
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
285
Stonecreek Subdivision 9647 Custom Report, 6/27/2024
86 / 86
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

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 Changes made based on project-specific information. It should be noted that "Other Asphalt Surfaces" refers to the off-site roadway dedication area.

Construction: Construction Phases Changes made based on applicant-provided information. Based on typical construction practices, architectural coating assumed to start two weeks after the start of building construction and last for the same number of days.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement —
Construction: Paving Changes based on project-specific information Operations: Vehicle Data Changes to trip generation rates made to be consistent with TJKM’s project-specific TIS Operations: Hearths Changes based on every household opting to have a hearth, which provides a conservative analysis. 286
Appendix B
Traffic Impact Study

287
Traffic Impact
Study
July 17, 2023
Revised: November 20, 2023
Stonecreek Residential
Development Oakley, CA
163
158
, ~03; Ill
u» 10 on ll6
I
1 IS)
f JC,EJJOJIT
~ Al'IC,l Ll.C
u:t:1- JSM.,!J;
,,_,
9 ~ I 10 11 12 u 14
~
)'"'-- - (
1S9 1 ''°
; '" I I;; 142
143
144
~'\..iftd t
"'?3 40-0 0
1)9
! 27 26 IJ
In ' ll \
~-
22 58
~J-r:.:-:•~o:-.~· ;i:".\T O.'I,
0'33 50 0 1 1
l
288
Traffic Impact Study
Stonecreek Residential Development
November 20, 2023
City of Oakley, California
289
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ iii List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Vehicle Miles Traveled................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Project Trips .................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Level of Service ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Existing plus Project Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5 Background Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background plus Project Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 5 Additional Transportation Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Pedestrian Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Bicycle Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Transit Impacts ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Vehicular Site Access .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 On-Site Circulation .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Parking ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Study Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

1.2 Study Locations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Study Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Study Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Methodology .........................................................................................................................11

2.2 Level of Service Methodology .......................................................................................................................................12

2.2.1 Signalized Intersections ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 Stop-Controlled Intersections ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.2.3 Level of Service Standards .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ........................................................................................................................16

3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................17

3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................17 290
ii

3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................18

3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration ..................................................................................................23

3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis .........................................................................................................................26

4.0 Existing plus Project Conditions .......................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................................................................................................................27

4.2 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................................................................................28

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment .................................................................................................................30

4.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis .........................................................................................................................33

5.0 Background Condtitions ....................................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Background Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................................................34

5.2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis .........................................................................................................................39

6.0 Background plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 40

6.1 Project Trip Reassignment ..............................................................................................................................................40

6.2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis .........................................................................................................................40

7.0 Additional Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 44

7.1 Alternative Modes of Transportation ..........................................................................................................................44

7.1.1 Pedestrian Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 44

7.1.2 Bicycle Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 44

7.1.3 Transit Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 44

7.2 Vehicular Site Access .........................................................................................................................................................45

7.3 On-Site Circulation .............................................................................................................................................................45

7.4 Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................................45

7.5 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................45

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections .................................................................................. 13 Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for Stop Controlled Intersections ....................................................................... 14 Table 3: Existing Bus Services ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Existing Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results ........................................................... 26 Table 5: Project Trip Generation (ITE TGM 11th Ed.; Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street) ....................................... 29 Table 6: Existing plus Project Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results .................................. 33 Table 7: Background Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results .................................................. 39 Table 8: Background plus Project Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results ......................... 41 291
iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Site Plan .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3: Existing Conditions – Pedestrian Network ............................................................................................................ 20 Figure 4: Existing Conditions – Bike Network ........................................................................................................................ 21 Figure 5: Existing Conditions – Transit Network ................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 6: Existing Conditions - Lane Configuration and Control .................................................................................... 24 Figure 7: Existing Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................... 32 Figure 10: Redistribution of Existing Trips for Background Conditions ....................................................................... 36 Figure 11: Background Conditions – Lane Configuration and Control ........................................................................ 37 Figure 12: Background Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 38 Figure 13: Background plus Project Conditions – Project Trip Assignment ............................................................... 42 Figure 14: Background plus Project Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................................ 43

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: HCM Methodology
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix C: Existing plus Project Conditions Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix D: Background Conditions Capacity Analysis Worksheets Appendix E: Background plus Project Conditions Capacity Analysis Worksheets 292
4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that was conducted for a proposed residential development (Project) on Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley (City), California.

This TIS was conducted consistent with State and City of Oakley guidelines and standards. This document was prepared in accordance with best professional practices and standards that assess the impacts of a proposed development on the transportation system, and as appropriate, recommends improvements to lessen or negate those impacts. Transportation analyses, as presented in this TIS, involve the evaluation of existing and anticipated future roadway conditions, including with and without the proposed development, and recommend transportation improvements to offset both the impacts of the increase in future traffic volumes and the changes in traffic operations due to the development.

Project Overview
The Project would construct 176 single family homes on a site that is currently vacant.

The purpose of this TIS is to evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The report includes a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis, intersection level of service (LOS) capacity analyses of key intersections, and evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access, on-site circulation, and connectivity for vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians.

To evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, six study intersections were identified with input from City staff (five existing intersections and one future site entrance) and were evaluated during the weekday morning (a.m.) peak hour and weekday afternoon (p.m.) peak hour under four study scenarios. The study intersections were evaluated under:
 Existing Conditions, with and without the proposed development; and  Background Conditions, with and without the proposed development.

Existing and Background conditions were based on the most recent approved City of Oakley Citywide Model for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
The proposed development is expected to add 176 homes to the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), a land use category that is considered non-exempt under the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) SB-743 Technical Advisory, adopted on December 2018. The project is not screened out from detailed analysis. From the 2018 Base Year run, the home based VMT per capita for the City of Oakley is 27.43. For a project to not be significant, the 85% threshold is set at 0.85 x 27.43 which is 23.32. The 2018 Base Year plus Project model run added 176 Single Family Dwelling Units into TAZ #30263. The resultant home based VMT per capita for the project TAZ is 24.43. Consistent with recommended mitigation measures the project includes full sidewalks within the project and would provide connections to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. 293
5 A total of 7.4% reduction in VMT for the project reduces the value from 24.43 to 22.62. With mitigation, the Stonecreek residential project is found to have a less than significant impact on VMT for the base year.

Project Trips
Using the methodology presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (TGM), the proposed development is expected to generate approximately 1,697 new trips during a typical weekday, with 125 new trips (31 inbound, 94 outbound) occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 169 new trips (106 inbound, 63 outbound) occurring during the p.m. peak hour.

Level of Service
Existing Conditions
Under this scenario, all but one of the study intersections operate at acceptable LOS D/E or better during both peak hours. The intersection of Main Street & Delta Road (Study Intersection 6) operates at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour.

Existing plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all but one of the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. The intersection of Main Street & Delta Road (Study Intersection 6) would operate at LOS F during both peak hours. This inconsistency with the City of Oakley General Plan can be eliminated by signalizing this intersection, improving operations to LOS C or better during both peak hours.

It should be noted that signalization of Main Street & Delta Road is planned for the future and included under Background conditions. With this improvement, the project would be consistent with City standards.

Background Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours.

Background plus Project Conditions
Under this scenario, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. The project would be consistent with City standards.

Additional Transportation Analyses
Pedestrian Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in any conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans, or programs related to pedestrian facilities. The proposed Project would not decrease the performance or safety of existing pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian access to the site would continue to be adequate with the proposed Project.

Bicycle Impacts
The proposed Project would not result in any conflicts or inconsistencies with existing bicycle facilities or with adopted bicycle system plans, policies, or programs related to bicycle facilities. The proposed Project 294
6 would not decrease the performance or safety of bicycle facilities. Bicycle access to the site would continue to be adequate with the proposed Project.

Transit Impacts
The proposed Project would not conflict with existing or planned transit facilities, nor is it expected to create inconsistencies between additional transit trips and adequate levels of pedestrian and bicycle facilities along transit routes and at transit stops. Transit access would continue to be adequate with the proposed Project.

Vehicular Site Access
Access to the project site would be via one new street (Street B) connected to Sellers Avenue and via connections to Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way to the north. Access to the proposed project would be adequate.

On-Site Circulation
Circulation on the project site is via internal streets that are generally 36 feet wide, with 30-foot corner radii.

Pedestrian access and circulation are provided via new sidewalks on all internal streets and connecting to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. On-site circulation is considered adequate.

Parking
Under the City of Oakley Municipal Code, single family homes are required to provide two covered offstreet parking spaces on the same lot. It is expected that the proposed single family homes would include two car garages, satisfying this requirement. In addition, internal streets would typically permit on-street parking on both sides. The proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate.

Recommendations
The following are recommended:
 Ensure that an accessible connection is provided for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail.
295
7 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that was conducted for a proposed residential development (Project) on Sellers Avenue in the City of Oakley in Contra Costa County. The Project would construct 176 single family homes on a site that is currently vacant.

This chapter discusses the TIS purpose, the Project study area, and the scenarios analyzed. Figure 1 shows the Project study area and the Project site location. Figure 2 shows the Project’s site plan, dated May 2, 2023.

1.1 Study Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide summaries of changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network as a result of the proposed Project. The City of Oakley has not formally adopted VMT standards yet, so the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory guidance (December 2018) was used for VMT significance analysis. A level-of-service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the proposed Project’s impacts on the surrounding roadway network and consistency with the City of Oakley’s guidelines and standards.

1.2 Study Locations
TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at six study intersections (five existing intersections and one future entrance) during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for a typical weekday. The study intersections were selected based on TJKM’s working knowledge of the area and with input and approval from City of Oakley staff.

The peak periods observed were between 7 and 9 a.m. and between 4 and 6 p.m. The study intersections and their corresponding traffic controls are listed below:

Study Intersection 1: Sellers Avenue & E. Cypress Road (Signal) Study Intersection 2: Sellers Avenue & Laurel Road (Signal, future intersection) Study Intersection 3: Sellers Avenue & Delta Road (All-Way Stop) Study Intersection 4: Sellers Avenue & Street B (Two-Way Stop, project conditions only) Study Intersection 5: Main Street & Laurel Road (Signal)* Study Intersection 6: Main Street & Delta Road (Two-Way Stop)* * indicates that intersection is in a Priority Development Area Figure 1 shows the location of the study intersections.

1.3 Study Scenarios
The roadway network operations within the Project study area were analyzed under the following scenarios:
 Existing Conditions – This scenario describes existing transportation conditions in the study area based on the current roadway and sidewalk network characteristics, transit service, and the existing Oakley Citywide Traffic Model.
296
8  Existing plus Project Conditions – This scenario is similar to Existing Conditions but with the addition of new trips that would be generated by the project.  Background Conditions –This scenario describes the projected peak hour traffic operations based on the net change to travel patterns anticipated from approved (but not yet constructed) or fully/partially occupied developments in the City at the time of the Existing Conditions assessment. This includes additional trips that would be generated if the proposed approved developments were to operate at full occupancy. The conditions in this scenario were developed using the Updated Citywide Traffic Model and include the proposed Laurel Avenue extension.  Background plus Project Conditions – This scenario is similar to Background Conditions but with the inclusion of vehicle trips that would be generated by the project. 297
X Study Intersection N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Mar sh Creek
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
2 6 3
5 4
:~ 1-----------r-' i
l
I
: I
■ •
298
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Figure 2: Site Map
.. J I I I ),/ I ~- l -~ 1~)1 ~~--
-,--~ ---------- --
• CITY OF OAKLE{
37 36 35 34 33 32
43 44 45 46 47 48
16 13 72
84 85

STREETC
163 162 161 160
158

0. ~ '
~ ~, \
FROST 157
:1·~:f '"\"' . :,~
156
,, - ~ ~
" " " 152
=
31 30 29
49 50 51
8 I
· S ~ EDGEMONT
F=] STATION, LLC
m ~ 033- 150- 018
16 17 18 19

EDGEMONT STATION, LLC
033- 150- 01 I •. I
' 'I' r
299
11 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Traffic impacts related to the proposed Project were evaluated for both compliance with applicable regulatory documents and environmental significance as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with the Technical Advisory published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a quantitative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment forms the basis of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project. Effective as of July 1, 2020, intersection Level of Service (LOS) can no longer be used to determine significant impacts for CEQA purposes. However, the CEQA guidelines do not exclude the use of LOS analyses when determining consistency with plans and standards for jurisdictions or agencies, such as with the City of Oakley.

2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Methodology
The City of Oakley has not yet established standards of significance for VMT, which is now a mandatory CEQA component of traffic studies. The Technical Advisory provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded. This study evaluates projectrelated VMT as outlined in the adopted CCTA VMT methodology. The methodology and implementation guidelines were adopted by CCTA in July 2020.

The CCTA guidelines include a screening process that describes five scenarios in which a project would be exempted from a VMT analysis requirement: 1) projects exempt from CEQA analysis, 2) small projects, 3) local serving projects, 4) projects in transit priority areas, and 5) projects in low VMT areas. It should be noted that even if a project satisfies one or more of the screening criteria, lead agencies may still require a VMT analysis if there is evidence that the project has characteristics that might lead to a significant amount of VMT. The project does not satisfy the requirements for screening criteria 1-4.

Under the CCTA VMT methodology, a low VMT area is defined as a city or unincorporated portion within one of the CCTA subregions where home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide or where the commute VMT per employee is at least 15 percent below the regional average. A conservative reading of the methodology would indicate that when the citywide average VMT per resident is above the countywide average, projects cannot be screened out based on location, and a VMT analysis must be completed. In such cases, the appropriate significance thresholds based on countywide or regional average would be applied. The methodology also permits the applicable average VMT for the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion to be utilized instead of the countywide or regional average, if it is less stringent.

Under CCTA guidelines, a residential project would have a significant impact on VMT if it would generate residential VMT per capita higher than 85 percent of the City of Oakley average. 300
12 2.2 Level of Service Methodology
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The LOS generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The operational LOS are given letter designations from A to F, with A representing the free-flow operating conditions and F representing the severely congested flow with high delays.

Typically, LOS C is considered as an ideal condition as it represents stable flow and efficient use of the transportation facility. Intersections generally are the capacity-controlling locations with respect to traffic operations on arterial and collector streets. The following sections provide detailed study methodology based on the type of intersections.

Each of the study intersections was analyzed using Synchro, Version 11, software using methodology outlined in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6). The LOS assessment under all scenarios is based on current traffic controls unless otherwise noted. HCM 6 methodology was used for consistency with agency standard requirements as described in Section 2.3.

2.2.1 Signalized Intersections
The study intersections under traffic signal control are analyzed using the HCM 6 methodology described in Chapter 19. This methodology determines LOS based on average control delay per vehicle for the overall intersection and by approach and a combination of control delay per vehicle and volume-to-capacity (v/c) for lane groups during the peak hour operating conditions.

Delay quantifies the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control; it is also a surrogate measure of driver discomfort and fuel consumption. The v/c ratio quantifies the degree to which a phase’s capacity is utilized by a lane group. A v/c ratio of 1.0 or more indicates cycle capacity is fully utilized and represents failure from a capacity perspective (just as delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle represents failure from a delay perspective).

Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the control delay and LOS for signalized intersections. The LOS assessments under all scenarios are based on current traffic controls and signal timings unless otherwise noted.

The LOS methodology for signalized intersections is described in detail in Appendix A. 301
13 Table 1: Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections LOS Definition
Control Delay
Range
(s/veh)
v/c Range
A
Very low control delay. This level is typically assigned when the v/c ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase.

Many vehicles do not stop at all.
≤ 10 ≤ 1.0
B
The v/c ratio is low. There is good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop, causing higher levels of delay. ≤ 20 ≤ 1.0
C
Higher delays occur in favorable progression or a due to a moderate cycle length, or both. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during a given cycle) may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is still considered low-to-moderate, though many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
≤ 35 ≤ 1.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more apparent. Longer delays may result from some combination of a high v/c ratio, ineffective progression, long cycle length, or high volumes. Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
≤ 55 ≤ 1.0
E
Typically considered the limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate a very high v/c ratio, poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Most cycles fail to clear the queue. ≤ 80 ≤ 1.0
F
Delays are unacceptable to most drivers. Conditions are considered oversaturated. Arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection (v/c in excess of 1.0). Many individual cycle failures.

Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay.
> 80 > 1.0
Source: Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition

2.2.2 Stop-Controlled Intersections
The study intersections under one/two-way stop control (OWSC / TWSC) and all-way stop control (AWSC) are analyzed using the HCM 6 methodology described in Chapters 20 and 21, respectively. LOS ratings for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.

At one- or two-way stop-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The weighted average delay for the entire intersections is presented for all-way stop controlled intersections.
302
14 Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for stop-controlled intersections. The delay ranges for stop-controlled intersections are lower than for signalized intersections, as drivers expect less delay at stop-controlled intersections.

The LOS methodology for stop-controlled intersections is described in detail in Appendix A.

Table 2: Level of Service Definitions for Stop Controlled Intersections LOS Definition
Control Delay
Range (s/veh)
v/c Range
A
Usually no conflicting traffic. Drivers can easily find gaps in traffic to maneuver. v/c is low.
≤ 10 ≤ 1.0
B
Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic. Drivers can find gaps in traffic. v/c is low.
≤ 15 ≤ 1.0
C
There is some noticeable delay due to conflicting traffic.

2.2.3 Level of Service Standards
Although level of service is no longer used for identifying impacts under CEQA, level of service analysis is still used for determining consistency with adopted agency plans and standards. Where standards refer to significant environmental impacts, this analysis instead identifies these as significant inconsistencies with adopted plans. In most cases, in this report LOS exceedances are characterized as substantial.

Per the City of Oakley General Plan, LOS D or a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 are the thresholds of acceptability for signalized intersections. Any signalized intersection operating worse than LOS D would be considered inconsistent with this standard. The intersection of Main Street and E. Cypress Road, which is a CMP intersection (Contra Costa County 2019 Congestion Management Program, CCTA, 2019), and the intersections along Main Street at Laurel Road and Delta Road, which are within Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2040, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2017), have standards of LOS E or better.

For this study, the study intersections were analyzed using HCM 6th Edition Methodology as per the City’s guidance. Average control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way-stop-control intersections and critical delay for minor approaches is reported for two-way-stop-control intersections.

Intersections operating worse than LOS D are considered inconsistent with the City’s standard. 303
15 Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines includes criteria for potential transportation impacts. Although no longer applicable for CEQA, they are still relevant issues for consideration by Oakley. These include whether a project would result in one of the following:
 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and mass transit.
 Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency access.
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.  Section 4B of the Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines identifies significance criteria based on level of service analysis results. Significant impacts occur if:
 The addition of project traffic results in the degradation of intersection operations from acceptable LOS D or better to unacceptable operations (LOS E or LOS F), except for intersections in Priority Development Areas (“PDA”) where the minimum acceptable operational standard is LOS E. This document refers to these exceedances as “substantial”.  The addition of project traffic to an intersection operating unacceptably before the addition of project trips results in an increase in average controlled delay (for signalized and all-way stopcontrolled intersections) or worst movement/approach delay (for side-street stop-controlled intersections) at the intersection by 5.0 seconds or more. 304
16 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing traffic volumes and operations are presented for the study intersections.

3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System
Relevant roadways in the project vicinity are discussed below and shown in Figure 1.

E. Cypress Road – E. Cypress Road is a two to four lane major arterial roadway. E. Cypress Road extends east-west between Main Street and Sandmound Boulevard. Residential, school, and agricultural uses, along with vacant land, characterize the lands along both sides of E. Cypress Road. Posted speed limits on E.

Cypress Road are 35 miles per hour (mph) between Main Street and Frank Hengel Way and east of Summer Lake Drive, 45 mph between Frank Hengel Way and Sellers Avenue and between Bethel Island Road and Summer Lake Drive, and 50 mph between Sellers Avenue and Bethel Island Road.

Sellers Avenue – Sellers Avenue is a two lane, north-south collector roadway north of E. Cypress Road, and minor arterial south of E. Cypress Road. Residential and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of Sellers Avenue. The maximum posted speed limit on Sellers Avenue is 50 mph between E. Cypress Road and Delta Road.

Laurel Road – Laurel Road is a two- to four-lane, east-west divided roadway. Currently, Laurel Road extends to Teton Road in the east and terminates at SR 4 to the west. Laurel Road mainly serves to collect and distribute traffic to/from residential streets and SR 4. In the future Laurel Road will extend to Sellers Avenue in the east and will be widened to four lanes for the portion east of Main Street. The posted speed limit on Laurel Road ranges between 35 to 40 mph near the project site.

Main Street – Main Street is a two to four lane major arterial roadway. Main Street is currently the major north-south transportation corridor in the City of Oakley. Mixed residential, commercial, and agricultural uses characterize the lands along both sides of Main Street between Rose Avenue and Laurel Avenue.

Maximum speeds posted on Main Street are 35 mph west of Rose Avenue, 45 mph between Rose Avenue and Bernard Road, and 40 mph south of Bernard Road.

Delta Road – Delta Road is a two-lane, east-west rural road that extends east from Main Street providing connection to the north end of the planned Byron Highway. Delta Road mainly provides access to residential and agricultural land uses. The posted speed limit on Delta Road is 40 mph.

Teton Road – Teton Road is a two-lane north-south collector that connects the subdivisions to the north of the project site to Laurel Road. The proposed project would extend Teton Road. There is no posted speed on Teton Road.
305
17 Kings Canyon Way – Kings Canyon Way is a two-lane north-south local street located to the north of the project site. The proposed project would connect to Kings Canyon Way. There is no posted speed on Kings Canyon Way.

3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wider sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, and easy access to transit facilities and services.

Pedestrian facilities consist of marked crosswalks, concrete sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths that provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreational facilities.

There are no existing sidewalks provided along the project frontage on Sellers Avenue. The closest sidewalk network is located in the existing subdivision to the north of the project site. There are also sections of sidewalk on the north side of E. Cypress Road at the intersection of E. Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue; on both sides of Main Street, south of Laurel Road; and on the south side of Laurel Road, east and west of Main Street. Although sidewalks are provided on at least one side along much of Laurel Road between Teton Road and Main Street, there is a notable gap with no sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk in the road or on the unpaved shoulder.

A graphic illustrating existing pedestrian facilities in the immediate project vicinity is provided in Figure 4.

3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle paths, lanes, and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following four classes:
 Class I (Multiuse Trail): A completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.
 Class II (Bike Lane): A designated lane for the exclusive use or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
 Class III (Bike Route): A route designated by signs or pavement markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
 Class IV (Separated Bikeway): An on-street facility reserved for use by bicyclists with physical separation between the bikeway and travel lanes. Physical separation consists of vertical elements that may include curbs, landscaping, bollards, or parking lanes.

The City of Oakley General Plan (September 2002), City of Oakley Parks, Recreation, and Trails Master Plan 2020 (Summer 2007), and the Contra Costa County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (October 2009) propose that several new bicycle facilities be constructed in the future which includes trunk line bikeway network 306
18 passing through Main Street and Laurel Road and a local multi-use trail on E. Cypress Road and Sellers Avenue in the vicinity of the project area.

The existing bicycle facilities are at the following locations:
 East Cypress Road – Class II bicycle facilities are provided on the north side between Knightsen Avenue and Main Street, and on the south side between Main Street and 790 feet east of Frank Hengel Way.
 Main Street- Class II bicycle facilities are provided between Cypress Road and Simoni Ranch Road on both sides.
 Sellers Avenue – Class II bicycle facilities are provided north of E. Cypress Road.  Laurel Road- Class II bicycle facilities are provided between Harvest Drive and Main Street on both sides.
 Teton Road – Class II bicycle facilities are provided south of Tuolumne Way.  Marsh Creek Regional Trail- Class I bicycle facility provided along Marsh Creek which can be accessed through Delta road approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site.  Via Delta de Anza Trail- Class I bicycle facility provided along Contra Costa Canal which can be accessed through Cypress Road and O’ Hara Avenue approximately two miles west of the project site.

A graphic illustrating existing bicycle facilities in the immediate project vicinity is provided in Figure 4.

3.4 Existing Transit Facilities
Tri-Delta Transit provides transit services in the City of Oakley, with three lines connecting Brentwood and the Pittsburg/Bay Point Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. Via Teton Road, the project is located approximately 1.4 miles from the Oakley Park & Ride lot on Main Street near Cypress Road and 0.9 miles from the nearest bus stops on Main Street at Laurel Road.  Route 300X, the Pittsburg BART/Brentwood Park & Ride route, is a weekday express route connecting Brentwood to the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station via Oakley and Antioch. This bus travels along Main Street, operating from approximately 4:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with 15 to 60- minute headways on weekdays only.
 Route 383, the Antioch BART/Blue Goose Park route, connects Oakley to the Antioch BART station and Brentwood. This bus route operates from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m., with 60-120 minute headways on weekdays only.
 Route 391, the BART/Pittsburg/Antioch/Oakley/Brentwood route, provides weekday and weekend service to most East County Cities. On weekdays, the route operates from approximately 4:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. with 30 to 60-minute headways. On weekends, the route operates on more limited hours with 60 minute headways.

Table 3 summarizes the services and frequency during the weekday and on weekends for transit in the City of Oakley. Figure 5 shows a map of transit routes operated by Tri-Delta Transit. 307
19 Table 3: Existing Bus Services
Route
#
From To
Weekdays Saturday Sunday
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
Operating
Hours
Headway
(minutes)
300X
Pittsburg/
Bay Point
BART Station
Brentwood
Park & Ride
4:00 a.m. –
10:00 p.m.
15-60 …. …. …. ….
383
Antioch
BART Station
Blue Goose
Park
5:00 a.m. –
6:45 p.m.
60-120 …. …. …. ….
391
Pittsburg/
Bay Point
BART Station
Brentwood
Park & Ride
4:00 a.m. –
1:30 a.m.
30-60 6:15 a.m. –
9:30 p.m. 60 7:15 a.m. –9:15 p.m. 60
Source: www.trideltatransit.com
308
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Figure 3: Existing Conditions - Pedestrian Facilities
X Study Intersection
Concrete Sidewalk
Gap
Marked Crosswalk
Project Site
LEGEND
Simoni Ranch Rd
Rose Ave
Sellers Ave
Main St Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Hill Ave
Brownstone Rd
M
ar sh Creek
Multi Use Trail
Bus Stop
Laurel Rd 2
6 3
4 5
-
L
■ • - 1111111
0 309
Project Site X Study Intersection
LEGEND
Figure 4: Existing Conditions - Bicycle Facilities
Class I Multi Use Trail
M
ar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
Rose Ave
Sellers Ave
Main St Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Hill Ave
Brownstone Rd
M
ar sh Creek
Laurel Rd
2 6 3
4 5
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
C
L
■ • -
310
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Figure 5: Existing Conditions - Transit Facilities
TRI DELTA TRANSIT• SYSTEM MAP
[.a9.!NnC,:v,1,i,C-T-1A,,,!llonfy
- --....1 ....... .....,..,.
- • ~,. ... ,c......,.....,__, -
-
.........
_____
,_,. .__... ,_, . ...._~ Wl~-...........
-
:1M.-...1MJ1.:..-. .... c..,----- --
................. ,~ .......... -
........... ,i..-.-.i-.,.... __
_ ___ 5-_l_,-I....., ...
-
.. _..,_,. ... , ..... IAIII'--. ..
_ _ ...._....,,.__ ................ _,
_,Wo,!l,lm l .......... MIIUII...._,_ -
-
.......
............ _,__,_1'111111 -~, .......... ......
-~
...
----
-
........ .,.., ..... ..,,.. .. ..,....,_,__ -
..... __ .... Coililo" , _______ ... , ........... __ 1. ......... ,....,_ - • IIM ._... ....... IMl'f....,_MII ....... , ..... 11111 _ .. __ ~------ ... __ -
.... ., ..... I ...... IMJM. .. &..._.,_
_ _
........ ._ ___ ,..,,,......,, ..
.oi::ca ........... ,._........, ____
. ............ ,._
• ·
Ill
..!
-
.. ,.....
.,
_____ ,.._
,,.,,.,..._ .. _.,...,_..1w. ...
.. .,,., ....... ,.,......_
_
.. ..
__......__~
... 11-.,_,_,.,...__ .... 111
~LcULLL~ -l.buc;_L'Lu
t.l..TRIDEL1AT~00~~
---. ...
·--•·-..,.,,. "
311
23 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration
The Existing Conditions turning movement volumes for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians at all study intersections reflect those of the most recently approved City of Oakley Citywide Model for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Since the City of Oakley is currently in the process of updating the model, the analysis may be updated with current counts at all intersections. The existing lane geometries and traffic control at each study intersection are illustrated on Figure 6, and the peak hour intersection turning movement volumes at each study intersection are illustrated on Figure 7. 312
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 6: Existing Conditions – Lane Configuration and Control Stop Sign
1 3
78 56 (162)
91 (94)
348 (562)
66 (98)
176 (165)
107 (136)348 (370)
101 (123)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
176 (58) 51 (48)
162 (95) 190 (134)
104 (57)
164 (129)465 (326)61 (95)569 (445)151 (112)
Main St.Main St.
177 (96) 41 (52)
289 (379) 63 (113)
33 (88)
86 (203)
36 (51)
13 (34)
96 (86)
5 (2)
47 (106)
11 (1)
E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
1 (0)
142 (149)3 (13)
3 (21)
63 (85)
1 (3)15 (22)
38 (43)
501 (283)
8 (10)2 (0)
95 (68)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

J
r
ro
+it L.
■
•
J
J
-t
~
-t
1 1
11 4
J_
t I I
I J
~t~
• re 0
T 4
• • • •
+ +
D
t L. t
•
~
313
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 7: Existing Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Volumes
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
XX
Stop Sign Traffic Signal
1 3
78 56 (162)
91 (94)
348 (562)
66 (98)
176 (165)
107 (136)348 (370)
101 (123)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
1 (0)
142 (149)3 (13)
3 (21)
63 (85)
1 (3)15 (22)
38 (43)
501 (283)
8 (10)2 (0)
95 (68)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Future
Intersection
Future
Intersection
Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
2 6 3
5 4
0 ~
._
~ t ~ 11 •
I I ~ t ~ _J,.
_.
•
:o ~
._
~ t ~ II •
■
•
_J,.
_.
•
I I ~ t ~
•
0 D 0
~
._
~.~ . • • • • ~t~ _J,.
_.
•
~ .~ •
• t ~
314
26 3.6 Intersection Level of Service Analysis
Under Existing Conditions, intersections were analyzed based on lane geometries and traffic controls provided by the Existing Conditions scenario of the Citywide Traffic Model, with minor corrections to reflect actual Existing Conditions. The results of the level of service analysis for Existing Conditions are summarized in Table 4. Intersections that operated at unacceptable LOS are shown in red. Detailed calculation sheets for the Existing Conditions scenario are contained in Appendix B.

As illustrated in the table below, all but one of the existing study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. The intersection of Main Street & Delta Road (Study Intersection 6) operates at unacceptable LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and acceptable LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. As this intersection is located in a priority development area, the applicable LOS threshold is LOS E.

Table 4: Existing Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results No. Intersection Control
Type[1]
Peak
Hour[2]
Delay[3]
(Sec/Veh) LOS[4]
1 Sellers Ave. & E. Cypress Rd. Signal AM 16 B
PM 16.3 B
2 Sellers Ave. & Laurel Rd. -
AM - -
PM - -
3 Delta Rd. & Sellers Rd. AWSC AM 9.4 A
PM 13.0 B
4 Sellers Ave. & Street B -
AM - -
PM - -
5 Main St. & Laurel Rd.[5] Signal AM 40.7 D
PM 32.8 C
6 Main St. & Delta Rd.[5] TWSC
AM 70.2 F
PM 40.5 E
Notes:

1. Signal = Signalized; OWSC = One-Way Stop Control

2. a.m. = a.m. Peak Hour; p.m. = p.m. Peak Hour

3. Delay measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.

4. LOS = Level of Service

5. Priority Development Area (Plan Bay Area 2050)
Red indicates unacceptable LOS.
“-“ indicates not applicable.

I I
315
27 4.0 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section describes the impacts of the proposed project at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system. Existing plus Project Conditions consist of existing traffic volumes and roadway facilities plus new traffic generated by the proposed project.

This section consists of two analysis components:
 A vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) assessment of the proposed project (Section 4.1), and  A level-of-service (LOS) assessment of study intersections (Sections 4.2 to 4.4).

The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed development is estimated using a three-step process:
 Trip Generation (Section 4.2) – Estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network,  Trip Distribution (Section 4.3)– Estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site, and  Trip Assignment (Section 4.3) – The new trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements.

Lane geometry and traffic control for Existing plus Project Conditions are identical to Existing Conditions, with the exception of the new intersection at Sellers Avenue & Street B (Intersection #4).

4.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled
TJKM conducted Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) analysis for the project in compliance with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) via the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) recommended VMT analysis methodology.

The CCTA VMT analysis methodology provides different screening criteria and significance thresholds based on the project land use type. CCTA considers residential projects to have a significant impact on VMT if the project generated home-based VMT per resident is higher than the less stringent of the following:
 85% of the home-based VMT per resident in the municipality or  85% of the existing County-wide average home-based VMT per resident.

TJKM conducted a VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) analysis for the proposed housing project located on Sellers Road in Oakley, CA. The project proposes build 176 single family units in a residential subdivision.

The VMT Analysis was performed for this project in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Model. The Travel Analysis Zone (TAZ) for this project in the model is #30263. The 176 single family dwelling units were added into the TAZ for the base year to see if the project creates significant VMT impacts.

As this project is not screened out from VMT analysis, two full model runs were performed for this project in accordance to CCTA VMT methodology. The first one is a base year 2018 run to analyze existing VMT per capita numbers for the City of Oakley. The second run is a base year 2018 plus project run with the housing units added in to see if its impact on VMT is significant. For the 2018 Base Year model, the Laurel Avenue 316
28 extension to Sellers Avenue was added in to reflect the latest Oakley General Plan’s Circulation Element and also to connect the project to major destination centers within Oakley.

From the 2018 Base Year run, the home based VMT per capita for the City of Oakley is 27.43. For a project to not be significant, the 85% threshold is set at 0.85 x 27.43 which is 23.32. This value is the less stringent home-based VMT per capita number as mentioned in the CCTA VMT methodology guidelines.

The 2018 Base Year plus Project model run added 176 Single Family Dwelling Units into TAZ #30263. The resultant home based VMT per capita for the project TAZ is 24.43. Since this value is higher than the threshold, some mitigation is required for this project to have an insignificant impact on VMT.

Mitigation measures that this project may attempt include:

1. Improve the pedestrian network – this strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network within the project and connecting to nearby destinations. Sidewalk improvements count as part of this strategy and the maximum VMT reduction allowed is 5.7%.

2. Implement traffic calming and low-street bicycle facilities – this strategy focuses are creating roadway networks of low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Maximum VMT reduction allowed with this strategy is 1.7%.

Consistent with these recommended mitigation measures, the project includes full sidewalks within the project, and would provide direct connections to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. A total of 7.4% reduction in VMT for the project reduces the value from 24.43 to 22.62. With mitigation, the Stonecreek residential project is found to have a less than significant impact on VMT for the base year.

4.2 Project Trip Generation
In order to estimate trips generated by the proposed development for the weekday morning (a.m.) and weekday afternoon (p.m.) peak periods as well as for weekday daily trips, TJKM utilized the published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (TGM), and consistent with the methodology published in ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition (TGH).

TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 (Single Family Detached Housing) .The trip generation is shown in Table 5. The proposed development is anticipated to generate an estimated 1,697 new trips during a typical weekday, with 125 new trips (31 inbound, 94 outbound) occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 169 new trips (106 inbound, 63 outbound) occurring during the p.m. peak hour. 317
29 Table 5: Project Trip Generation (ITE TGM 11th Ed.; Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street) Notes:

Multiple ITE land use codes (LUC) have fitted curve equations (EQ) for various analysis periods in addition to rates. The methodology in the ITE's TGH was utilized to determine which was used.

Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Single-Family Detached Housing
(210) 176.00 DU EQ 1,697 EQ 25:75 31 94 125 EQ 63:37 106 63 169 Total Trips 1,697 31 94 125 106 63 169
Land Use (ITE Code) Size
Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
318
Stonecreek Residential TIS 30

4.3 Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is a process of developing study assumptions that estimates the direction vehicular trips will arrive and depart the study site. Trip assignment estimates specific streets and turning movements at study intersections for project-related or site traffic.

Trip distribution and assignment assumptions for the proposed project were developed based on existing travel patterns, knowledge of the study area, and engineering judgment.

The assumed trip distribution for vehicles is as follows:
 19 percent to/from Main Street North
 53 percent to/from Laurel Road west of Main Street
 10 percent to/from W. Cypress Road West
 15 percent to/from Main Street South
 2 percent to/from Sellers Road South
 1 percent to/from E. Cypress Road East
Figure 8 illustrates the trip distribution and assignment for project trips and pass-by trip reductions.

The Existing plus Project Conditions peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by combining the existing peak hour traffic volumes and the project’s total trip assignment, as illustrated in Figure 9. 319
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Traffic Signal
X
Figure 8: Trip Distribution and Assignment
Stop Sign
Trip Distribution
(XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
XX AM Peak Hour Trips
1 34
78 Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.
0 (1)
64 (43)2 (1)9 (32)
E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Street B
E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
27 (18)
1 (1)
Sellers Ave.
22 (74)
1 (2)
21 (72) 28 (19)
Main St.Main St.
9 (31)
66 (44)
16 (56)
14 (10)
50 (33)
Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
50 (33)
16 (56)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.
5 (16)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Future
Intersection
Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
5 2
4 6 3
Mar sh Creek
10%
19%
53%
15%
2%
1%
xx
0 ~-
■
•
+-----+
I I •
11 ~ ~
T
11 II~
T
•
0 ~
~ •
•
•
I +-----+
• 0
.,J ... . • .,J
• • t
j j • ~
T
~
320
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 9: Existing plus Project Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Stop Sign Traffic Signal
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
Mar sh Creek
1 34
78 Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave.
8 (10)2 (0)
Sellers Ave.
9 (32)274 (164)
3 (21)
63 (85)
1 (3)79 (65)
38 (43)
501 (283)
95 (69)
1 (0)
144 (150)3 (13)
E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Street B
E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
34 (106)
123 (104)
5 (2)
48 (107)
11 (1)
Sellers Ave.
22 (74)
148 (194)
33 (88)
87 (205)
36 (51)
28 (19)
Main St.Main St.
186 (127) 41 (52)
289 (379) 63 (113) 66 (44) 164 (129) 465 (326) 61 (95)
176 (58)
569 (445)167 (168)
65 (58)
162 (95) 240 (167)
104 (57)
Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
176 (165)
157 (169)348 (370)
117 (179)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.
91 (94)
348 (562)
71 (114)
Main St.
56 (162)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Future
Intersection
Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
5 2
4 6 3
Mar sh Creek
0 ~
._
~ t ~ 11 •
I I ~ t ~ _J,.
_.
•
:o ~
._
~ t ~ II •
■
•
_J,.
_.
•
I I ~ t ~
•
0 .~
•
D 0
~
._
~.~ . • • ~.
• • ~t~ _J,. • ~t _J,.
_. • •
~
•
• t ~
321
Stonecreek Residential TIS 33

4.4 Intersection Level of Service Analysis
The intersection level of service analysis results for the Existing plus Project Conditions scenario are summarized in Table 8. The results for Existing Conditions are included for comparison purposes.

Intersections that operated at unacceptable thresholds are shown in red, and intersections that degraded between “No Project” conditions to “Plus Project” conditions per the applicable thresholds are likewise shown in red. Detailed calculation sheets for Existing plus Project Conditions are contained in Appendix C.

As illustrated in the table below, all but one of the existing study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. The intersection of Main Street & Delta Road (Study Intersection 6) operates at unacceptable LOS F in both peak hours. As this intersection is located in a priority development area, the applicable LOS threshold is LOS E. The increase in delay and degradation in LOS would be a substantial inconsistency with existing General Plan standards, requiring mitigation. TJKM performed a peak hour signal warrant analysis, based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) standards, at the intersection for existing peak hour traffic volumes. A signal is warranted in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, based on the peak hour signal warrant (Warrant #3). Installing a signal control at this intersection improves intersection operations to LOS C or better during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.

With mitigation, the proposed development would have a less-than-substantial impact on the surrounding road network under Existing plus Project Conditions.

Table 6: Existing plus Project Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results No. Intersection Control
Type[1]
Peak
Hour[2]
Delay[3]
(Sec/Veh) LOS[4] Delay[3](Sec/Veh) LOS[4]
Change
in Delay
1 Sellers Ave. & E. Cypress Rd. Signal AM 16 B 17.2 B 1.2 PM 16.3 B 17.4 B 1.1
2 Sellers Ave. & Laurel Rd. -

AM - - - - -

PM - - - - -
3 Delta Rd. & Sellers Rd. AWSC AM 9.4 A 10.1 B 0.7
PM 13.0 B 15.3 C 2.3
4 Sellers Ave. & Street B OWSC AM - - 11.4 B 11.4
PM - - 10.9 B 10.9
5 Main St. & Laurel Rd.[5] Signal AM 40.7 D 47.2 D 6.5
PM 32.8 C 39.6 D 6.8
6 Main St. & Delta Rd.[5] TWSC
AM 70.2 F 170.3 F 100.1
PM 40.5 E 93.4 F 52.89
Mitigation: Signalize Signal AM - - 18.9 B -51.3
PM - - 24.4 C -16.1
Notes:

1. Signal = Signalized; OWSC = One-Way Stop Control

2. a.m. = a.m. Peak Hour; p.m. = p.m. Peak Hour

3. Delay measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.

4. LOS = Level of Service

5. Priority Development Area (Plan Bay Area 2050)
Red indicates unacceptable LOS.
“-“ indicates not applicable.

I I
322
Stonecreek Residential TIS 34

5.0 BACKGROUND CONDTITIONS
This section presents the results of the level of service calculations under Background Conditions. Future impacts were evaluated taking into account key planned improvements in the City of Oakley. The most notable project is the completion of the Laurel Road extension between Main Street and Sellers Avenue.

This includes a railroad grade separation and widening/construction of Laurel Road to four lanes in this section. In addition, Sellers Avenue is planned to be widened to four lanes between Laurel Road and E.

Cypress Road. Cypress Road is planned to be fully improved to six lanes east of Sellers Avenue and to four lanes west of Sellers Avenue. Other roads and intersections are scheduled to be improved as well.

5.1 Background Traffic Growth
Using the calibrated and validated updated Citywide Traffic Model, additional traffic projected to be generated from approved developments was forecasted for Background Conditions. The Background Conditions scenario includes additional traffic that would be generated by various approved projects completed within the City of Oakley and redistribution of traffic due to the Laurel Road extension. The approved projects include the Acacia Residential, Emerson Ranch Commercial, Burroughs/WestGate Ventures Residential, and Sellers Residential projects previously studied by TJKM.

Additionally, he following planned improvements, as per the Capital Improvement Program, are considered at the study intersections with and without the proposed project:
 Sellers Avenue/E. Cypress Road is analyzed with the recent upgrade to lane geometry and signal timing.

Additionally, the intersection considers planned widenings of Sellers Avenue and E. Cypress Road segments. The intersection is analyzed with one shared through-left lane and two right-turn lanes at the southbound approach; one exclusive left-turn lane, one shared through-right lane and two rightturn lanes at the northbound approach; one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one shared throughright lane at the eastbound approach; and two exclusive left-turn lanes, one through lane and one shared through-right lane at the westbound approach.
 Main Street/Laurel Road is analyzed with future planned upgrade to striping at the northbound, eastbound and westbound approaches under Background Conditions. The intersection is analyzed with one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane at the northbound approach; one exclusive left-turn lane, two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane at the eastbound approach; and one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane at the westbound approach.
 Main Street/Delta Road is analyzed as a signalized intersection with updated lane geometry under Background Conditions. The intersection is analyzed with exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes at the westbound approach, one through lane and one shared through-right lane at the northbound approach, and one exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes at the southbound approach.  Sellers Avenue/Laurel Road is a new intersection analyzed under Background Conditions. This intersection is formed due to the extension of Laurel Road. The intersection is analyzed as a signalized 323
Stonecreek Residential TIS 35
intersection with two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane at the eastbound approach, one exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes at the northbound approach, and one through lane and two rightturn lanes at the southbound approach.

Figure 10 shows the redistribution of existing traffic as depicted in the Updated Oakley Traffic Model with the Laurel Road extension. The updated lane geometry is illustrated in Figure 12, and Background traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 12.
324
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 10: Redistribution of Existing Trips
Stop Sign Traffic Signal
(XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
XX AM Peak Hour Trips
Mar sh Creek
123
78 361 (854)
154 (137)371 (646)
70 (111)
146 (299)
173 (192)341 (412)
121 (205)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
211 (58) 70 (13)
787 (298) 206 (13)
150 (61)
302 (336)496 (403)62 (99)638 (491)159 (131)
Main St.Main St.
158 (53) 44 (54)
462 (990) 60 (59) 63 (113)
34 (92)
89 (336)
23 (16)85 (51)
171 (364)
22 (64)
147 (140)
67 (116)
242 (786)
61 (181) 295 (670)
E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Future Laurel Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
12 (12)
152 (227)3 (13)
3 (21)
63 (85)
13 (14)679 (185)264 (180)49 (40)
158 (43)
987 (793)
121 (187)215 (41)
588 (316)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Future
Intersection
-200 (-150)
+200 (+150)
-50 (-25)
-50 (-25)
+200 (+150)
+50 (+25)
+50 (+25)
+50 (+25) +200 (+150)
-150 (-100)
-50 (-25)
+50 (+25)
Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
5 2
4 6 3
0 :o
■
•
.,J
-.

J
-
-f""
11 11
-
11 11 t~
• D 0
.,J 11
11 • • • • J
-.
0 11
11 •
325
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 11: Background Conditions - Lane Geometry and Control Stop Sign
123
78 361 (854)
154 (137)371 (646)
70 (111)
146 (299)
173 (192)341 (412)
121 (205)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Sellers Ave.

Future Laurel Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
12 (12)
152 (227)3 (13)
3 (21)
63 (85)
13 (14)679 (185)264 (180)49 (40)
158 (43)
987 (793)
121 (187)215 (41)
588 (316)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Future
Intersection
Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
5 2
4 6 3
Traffic Signal
Mar sh Creek
0 .J.Jr
j
-r --
ro
.J t t l+
■
•
j
--t
..t...
-t
1 1 t
11 ., -r.,.,.
l.
--t I I
I I
., t f.
• D 0
.J.J t T 4
1 1 • •
j
11 j ., t t t
• •
+ +
0 l.
.ltl+ I I
t
11 t t ,.
•
326
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 12: Background Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Stop Sign Traffic Signal
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
Mar sh Creek
123
78 361 (854)
154 (137)371 (646)
70 (111)
146 (299)
173 (192)341 (412)
121 (205)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Sellers Ave.

Future Laurel Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
12 (12)
152 (227)3 (13)
3 (21)
63 (85)
13 (14)679 (185)264 (180)49 (40)
158 (43)
987 (793)
121 (187)215 (41)
588 (316)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

5.2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis
The intersection LOS analysis results for Background Conditions are summarized in Table 7. Intersections that operated at unacceptable LOS are shown in red. Detailed calculation sheets for 2030 Background Conditions are contained in Appendix D.

As illustrated in the table below, all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours.

Table 7: Background Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results No. Intersection Control
Type[1]
Peak
Hour[2]
Delay[3]
(Sec/Veh) LOS[4]
1 Sellers Ave. & E. Cypress Rd. Signal AM 40.2 D
PM 36.0 D
2 Sellers Ave. & Laurel Rd. Signal AM 48.3 D
PM 49.6 D
3 Delta Rd. & Sellers Rd. AWSC AM 10.2 B
PM 18.5 C
4 Sellers Ave. & Street B -
AM - -
PM - -
5 Main St. & Laurel Rd.[5] Signal AM 52.3 D
PM 51.5 D
6 Main St. & Delta Rd.[5] Signal AM 11.7 B
PM 7.7 A
Notes:

1. Signal = Signalized; OWSC = One-Way Stop Control

2. a.m. = a.m. Peak Hour; p.m. = p.m. Peak Hour

4. LOS = Level of Service

5. Priority Development Area (Plan Bay Area 2050)
Red indicates unacceptable LOS.
“-“ indicates not applicable.

I I
328
Stonecreek Residential TIS 40

6.0 BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section describes the impacts of the proposed project at the study intersections and surrounding roadway system under Background plus Project Conditions. Background plus Project Conditions consist of existing and background traffic volumes (existing plus approved and pending projects) and roadway facilities plus new traffic generated by the proposed project. Lane geometry and traffic control for Background plus Project Conditions are identical to Background Conditions.

6.1 Project Trip Reassignment
Due to the extension of Laurel Road under Background Conditions, some project trips were rerouted for Background plus Project Conditions. Figure 13 illustrates the distribution and assignment of project trips to origins/destinations, and the assignment of project trips to study intersections based on the anticipated paths of travel under Background plus Project Conditions. Background plus Project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 14.

6.2 Intersection Level of Service Analysis
The intersection level of service analysis results for Background plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 8. The results for Background Conditions are included for comparison purposes. Intersections that operated at unacceptable thresholds are shown in red, and intersections that degraded between “No Project” conditions to “Plus Project” conditions per the applicable thresholds are likewise shown in red.

Detailed calculation sheets for Background plus Project Conditions are contained in Appendix E.

As illustrated in the table below, all of the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better during both peak hours. Thus, the proposed development would have a less-than-substantial impact on the surrounding road network under the Background plus Project Conditions scenario. 329
Stonecreek Residential TIS 41
Table 8: Background plus Project Conditions – Intersection Level of Service Analysis Results No. Intersection Control
Type[1]
Peak
Hour[2]
Delay[3]
(Sec/Veh) LOS[4] Delay[3](Sec/Veh) LOS[4]
Change
in
Delay
1 Sellers Ave. & E. Cypress Rd. Signal AM 40.2 D 43.8 D 3.6 PM 36.0 D 36.8 D 0.8
2 Sellers Ave. & Laurel Rd. Signal AM 48.3 D 49.3 D 1
PM 49.6 D 50.2 D 0.6
3 Delta Rd. & Sellers Rd. AWSC AM 10.2 B 10.4 B 0.2
PM 18.5 C 19.6 C 1.1
4 Sellers Ave. & Street B OWSC AM - - 9.3 A -
PM - - 11.2 B -
5 Main St. & Laurel Rd.[5] Signal AM 52.3 D 53.2 D 0.9
PM 51.5 D 51.6 D 0.1
6 Main St. & Delta Rd.[5] Signal AM 11.7 B 11.8 B 0.1
PM 7.7 A 7.9 A 0.2
Notes:

1. Signal = Signalized; OWSC = One-Way Stop Control

2. a.m. = a.m. Peak Hour; p.m. = p.m. Peak Hour

3. Delay measured in seconds per vehicle. For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the average control delay for all turning movements. For one- and two-way stop controlled intersections, the delay represents the worse average control delay for a given approach.

4. LOS = Level of Service

5. Priority Development Area (Plan Bay Area 2050)
Red indicates unacceptable LOS.
“-“ indicates not applicable.

I I I I I I I I
330
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 13: Background plus Project Conditions – Project Trip Assignment Stop Sign Traffic Signal
(XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
XX AM Peak Hour Trips
Mar sh Creek
xx Trip Distribution
1234
78 16 (56)
5 (16)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
50 (33) 14 (10)
Main St.Main St.
9 (31) 16 (56)
16 (11)
6 (18)
1 (2)
78 (52)
50 (33)28 (19)
5 (16)
27 (18)
1 (1)
Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Future Laurel Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Street B
E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
0 (1)
9 (32)14 (10)2 (1)25 (88)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

Sellers Ave. (N/S) & E. Cypress Rd.
(E/W)
Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Future Laurel Rd.
(E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Sellers Ave. (N/S) & Street B (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Laurel Rd. (E/W) Main St. (N/S) & Delta Rd. (E/W) Mar sh Creek
Malicoat Ave
Simoni Ranch Rd
E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd Sellers Ave Franklin Ln Broadway St Picasso Dr
Rose Ave
Main St
Sellers Ave
Main St
Machado Ln
Delta Rd Delta Rd
W Bolton Rd
Laurel Rd
Hill Ave
Delta Rd
Frank Hengel Wy
Jersey Island Rd
Brownstone Rd
Kinghtsen Ave
W Cypress Rd 1
5 2
4 6 3
10%
19%
53%
15%
2%
1%
0 ~-
■
•
--.
-
I I •
11 ~ ~
._
11 11
•
0 • n
• 0
i' 11 ~ ... . • ~
11 ~ t
--.
• • t
j j • ~
--.
• 11
11 ~
331
N
TJKM Oakley Stonecreek Residential TIS
Project Site
LEGEND
X Study Intersection
Figure 14: Background plus Project Conditions – Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Stop Sign Traffic Signal
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volumes
XX AM Peak Hour Volumes
1234
78 377 (910)
154 (137)371 (646)
75 (127)
146 (299)
173 (192)341 (412)
121 (205)
Laurel Rd.

Main St.Main St.

Laurel Rd. Delta Rd.
211 (58) 84 (23)
837 (331) 206 (13)
150 (61)
302 (336)496 (403)62 (99)638 (491)159 (131)
Main St.Main St.
167 (84) 44 (54)
462 (990) 76 (115) 63 (113) 16 (11)
6 (18)
11 (162)
34 (92)
90 (338)
85 (51)
78 (52)
73 (49)
200 (384)
27 (80)
174 (158)
67 (116)
243 (787)
61 (181) 308 (680)
Sellers Ave.

E. Cypress Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Future Laurel Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Delta Rd.

Sellers Ave.

Street B
E. Cypress Rd. Delta Rd.
12 (12)
154 (228)3 (13)25 (88)42 (95)
3 (21)
63 (85)
13 (14)689 (191)274 (213)63 (50)
158 (43)
987 (793)
121 (187)215 (41)
588 (317)
Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.Sellers Ave.

7.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including:
 Alternative Modes of Transportation;
 Vehicular Site Access;
 On-Site Circulation; and
 Parking.

Unlike the VMT or LOS impact methodology, the analyses in these sections are generally based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers and planners. This analysis references the site plan shown in Figure 2, dated May 2, 2023.

7.1 Alternative Modes of Transportation

7.1.1 Pedestrian Impacts
The proposed project would add a new sidewalk along the project frontage on Sellers Avenue, improving pedestrian facilities relative to existing conditions. Internal sidewalks would be provided on all internal streets and connect to existing sidewalks on Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way. The project would also connect to the adjacent Marsh Creek Regional Trail through the proposed park. A significant impact occurs if a proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans, or programs related to pedestrian facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of pedestrian facilities. The proposed Project would not result in any such conflicts; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is expected to be lessthan-significant.

7.1.2 Bicycle Impacts
The proposed project can be accessed via existing bike lanes on Teton Road and the new connection to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. An impact to bicyclists occurs if a proposed project disrupts existing bicycle facilities, or conflicts with or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. A significant impact occurs if a proposed project conflicts with applicable or adopted policies, plans, or programs related to bicycle facilities or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of bicycle facilities.

The proposed Project would not result in any such conflicts; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is expected to be less-than-significant.

7.1.3 Transit Impacts
A proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on transit if it conflicts with existing or planned transit facilities, or if it is expected to generate additional transit trips and it does not provide adequate facilities for additional pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops. The proposed Project is located approximately 0.9 miles from the nearest bus stops. While the Project is not expected to generate any substantial increases in transit ridership, any increases resulting from the Project could easily be 333
Stonecreek Residential TIS 45
accommodated by the surrounding bus services. Therefore, the impact to transit facilities is expected to be less-than-significant.

7.2 Vehicular Site Access
Access to the project site would be via one new street (Street B) connected to Sellers Avenue and via connections to Teton Road and Kings Canyon Way to the north. Access to the proposed project would be adequate.

7.3 On-Site Circulation
Circulation on the project site is via internal streets that are generally 36 feet wide, with 30-foot corner radii.

Pedestrian access and circulation are provided via new sidewalks on all internal streets and connecting to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. On-site circulation is considered adequate.

7.4 Parking
Under the City of Oakley Municipal Code, single family homes are required to provide two covered offstreet parking spaces on the same lot. It is expected that the proposed single family homes would include two car garages, satisfying this requirement. In addition, internal streets would typically permit on-street parking on both sides. The proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate.

7.5 Recommendations
TJKM makes the following recommendations:
 Ensure that an accessible connection is provided for bicyclists and pedestrians to the Marsh Creek Regional Trail.
334
Stonecreek Residential TIS A
Appendix A: HCM Methodology
335
CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Office 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 www.TJKM.com 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Subject: Highway Capacity Manual – Level of Service Definitions The purpose of this memorandum is to define level of service (LOS) and the procedures for its calculation.

LOS is commonly used as a measure of effectiveness (MOE) / quality of service (QOS) for traffic. The procedures for LOS determination and calculation are found within the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition. MOE / QOS generally consist of quantitative metrics to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. LOS is a measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience.

Six levels of service are defined for each facility type that has procedures available. Alphabetical letters designated each grade from A to F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions; LOS F represents the worst operating conditions. Each LOS represents a range of operating conditions and drivers’ perceptions of those conditions. Safety is not included in the measure to establish service level.

A general description of LOS for every types of roadway facilities is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: General LOS by Facility Type
Uninterrupted Flow Interrupted Flow
Facility Example Types
Freeways Signalized intersections
Multi-lane highways
Two-way stop controlled
intersections
Two-lane highways All-way stop controlled intersections Urban Streets Roundabouts
LOS Character
A Free flow. Very low delay.

B
Stable flow. Presence of other users
noticeable. Low delay.

C
Stable flow. Comfort and
convenience starts to decline. Moderate delay
D High density stable flow. Acceptable delay
E Unstable flow. Limit of acceptable delay,
F Forced or breakdown flow. Unacceptable delay.
336
Highway Capacity Manual – Level of Service Definitions
2 Signalized Intersections
Signalized intersection LOS is based upon the traffic volume present in each lane on the roadway, the capacity of each lane at the intersection, and control delay experienced by each vehicle. LOS can be characterized for the entire intersection, each intersection approach, and each lane group. Control delay alone is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection or an approach; control delay and volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio are used to characterize LOS for a lane group. Delay quantifies the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control; it is also a surrogate measure of driver discomfort and fuel consumption. The v/c ratio quantifies the degree to which a phase’s capacity is utilized by a lane group. A v/c ratio of 1.0 or more indicates cycle capacity is fully utilized and represents failure from a capacity perspective (just as delay in excess of 80 sec/veh represents failure from a delay perspective). The detailed methodology for determining LOS at signalized intersection is presented in Chapter 19 of the HCM. The LOS for signalized intersections are defined in Table 2.

Table 2: Signalized LOS Summary
LOS Definition Control Delay
Range (s/veh) v/c Range
A
Very low control delay. This level is typically assigned when the v/c ratio is low and either progression is exceptionally favorable or the cycle length is short. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. ≤ 10 ≤ 1.0
B
The v/c ratio is low. There is good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop, causing higher levels of delay.
≤ 20 ≤ 1.0
C
Higher delays occur in favorable progression or a due to a moderate cycle length, or both. Individual cycle failures (i.e., one or more queued vehicles are not able to depart as a result of insufficient capacity during a given cycle) may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is still
considered low-to-moderate, though many vehicles still pass through the intersection without stopping.
≤ 35 ≤ 1.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more apparent. Longer delays may result from some combination of a high v/c ratio, ineffective progression, long cycle length, or high volumes.

Many vehicles stop, the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
≤ 55 ≤ 1.0
E
Typically considered the limit of acceptable delay. High delays usually indicate a very high v/c ratio, poor
progression, long cycle lengths, and high volumes. Most cycles fail to clear the queue.
≤ 80 ≤ 1.0
F
Delays are unacceptable to most drivers. Conditions are considered oversaturated. Arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection (v/c in excess of 1.0). Many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to higher delay. > 80 > 1.0
337
Highway Capacity Manual – Level of Service Definitions
3 Two-Way Stop Controlled Intersections
At two-way stopped controlled (TWSC) intersections, LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole or for major-street approaches for three primary reasons:

1. The major-street through and right-turning traffic are assumed to experience zero delay as traffic progression operates unimpeded;

2. The disproportionate number of major-street through traffic at a typical TWSC intersection skews the weighted average of all movements, resulting in very low overall average delay for all vehicles, and

3. The resulting low delay can mask LOS deficiencies for minor movements.

The LOS for the minor street and the mainline left-turn traffic are dependent on the volume and capacity of the available lanes, and the number and frequency of acceptable gaps in the major street traffic to make a conflicting turn. The LOS grade is provided for all conflicting movements at an intersection and is based on the total average control delay experienced by each vehicle and the lane group volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios. The delay includes the time it takes a vehicle to move from the back of a queue through the intersection. The detailed methodology for determining LOS at TWSC intersection is presented in Chapter 20 of the HCM. The TWSC LOS descriptions are provided in Table

3. Table 3: TWSC LOS Summary
LOS Definition Control Delay
Range (s/veh) v/c Range
A
Usually no conflicting traffic. Drivers can easily find gaps in traffic to maneuver. v/c is low. ≤ 10 ≤ 1.0
B
Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic. Drivers can find gaps in traffic. v/c is low. ≤ 15 ≤ 1.0
C
There is some noticeable delay due to conflicting traffic.

The detailed methodology for determining LOS at AWSC and roundabout intersection are presented in Chapter 21 and Chapter 22 respectively in the HCM. The AWSC and roundabout LOS descriptions are shared and are provided in Table 4.

Table 4: AWSC and Roundabout LOS Summary
LOS Definition Control Delay
Range (s/veh) v/c Range
A
Usually no conflicting traffic. Drivers can easily find gaps in traffic to maneuver. v/c is low. ≤ 10 ≤ 1.0
B
Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic. Drivers can find gaps in traffic. v/c is low. ≤ 15 ≤ 1.0
C
There is some noticeable delay due to conflicting traffic.

Drivers are still able to find gaps in traffic. ≤ 25 ≤ 1.0 D
Drivers experience delay due to less gaps in traffic to maneuver. Lane group v/c creeps closer to 1.0. ≤ 35 ≤ 1.0 E
Delay approaches driver tolerance levels. Drivers will
occasionally find gaps in traffic to maneuver. Lane group v/c approaches 1.0.
≤ 50 ≤ 1.0
F
Delay exceed driver tolerance levels or v/c exceeds 1.0 or both. > 50 > 1.0
339
Stonecreek Residential TIS B
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Capacity
Analysis Worksheets
340
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.533
Level Of Service: B
Delay (sec / veh): 16.0
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 1: Sellers Rd/E Cypress Rd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 50.00 50.00 45.00 50.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 185.00 100.00 100.00 250.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Sellers Rd Sellers Rd E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Intersection Setup
1 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
+ ., Ir ., ,.. ., I ,-.
341
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 125 6 61 1 3 12 14 357 219 136 716 1 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 31 2 15 0 1 3 3 89 55 34 179 0 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.7700 0.7700 0.7700 0.6900 0.6900 0.6900 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.7000 0.7000 0.7000 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 96 5 47 1 2 8 11 289 177 95 501 1 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 96 5 47 1 2 8 11 289 177 95 501 1 Name Sellers Rd Sellers Rd E Cypress Rd E Cypress Rd
Volumes
2 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
342
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No No No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0
Walk [s] 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 Split [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
All red [s] 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Amber [s] 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 0 30 0 0 30 0 30 60 0 30 60 0
Minimum Green [s] 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2 0
Lead / Lag - - - - - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 0 8 0 0 4 0 5 2 0 1 6 0
Control Type Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lead Green - Beginning of First Green
Offset [s] 0.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Free Running
Cycle Length [s] 90
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
3 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
343
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 89.89 0.58 1.78 11.01 15.95 221.69 66.53 75.31 75.28 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.60 0.02 0.07 0.44 0.64 8.87 2.66 3.01 3.01 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 49.94 0.32 0.99 6.12 8.86 128.68 36.96 41.84 41.82 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 2.00 0.01 0.04 0.24 0.35 5.15 1.48 1.67 1.67 Critical Lane Group Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No
Lane Group LOS C C C D E B C A A
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 23.70 26.02 27.15 53.82 74.14 17.99 25.40 8.74 8.74 X, volume / capacity 0.79 0.06 0.17 0.79 0.93 0.84 0.77 0.40 0.40 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 2.21 0.53 1.64 28.15 48.41 3.92 2.64 0.40 0.40 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.15 0.15 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 21.49 25.49 25.52 25.67 25.73 14.08 22.76 8.34 8.34 c, Capacity [veh/h] 243 17 18 15 15 688 177 905 904
s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1690 1752 1840 1564 1752 1724 1752 1840 1839 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.08 0.19 0.19 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.40 0.10 0.49 0.49 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 7 0 0 0 0 21 5 25 25
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 C, Cycle Length [s] 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
Lane Group C L C R L C L C C
Lane Group Calculations
4 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
344
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 23.70 23.70 23.70 26.02 27.15 53.82 74.14 17.99 17.99 25.40 8.74 8.74 Movement LOS C C C C C D E B B C A A
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 23.70 47.08 19.33 11.39
Approach LOS C D B B
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 16.01
Intersection LOS B
Intersection V/C 0.533
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 34.67 34.67 34.67 34.67
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.161 2.146 2.658 2.647 Crosswalk LOS B B B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 667 667 1333 1333 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 20.00 20.00 5.00 5.00
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.876 1.586 2.533 2.263 Bicycle LOS A A B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 4 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
5 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
345
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.249
Level Of Service: A
Delay (sec / veh): 9.4
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: All-way stop
Intersection 3: Sellers Rd/Delta Rd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 50.00 50.00 40.00 40.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name
Intersection Setup
Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 39 102 43 3 163 17 17 82 53 47 78 4 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 10 26 11 1 41 4 4 20 13 12 19 1 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8400 0.8400 0.8400 0.8700 0.8700 0.8700 0.7700 0.7700 0.7700 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 33 86 36 3 142 15 13 63 41 38 63 3 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 33 86 36 3 142 15 13 63 41 38 63 3 Name
Volumes
6 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
+ + + +
346
Intersection LOS A
Intersection Delay [s/veh] 9.37
Approach LOS A A A A
Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.44 9.50 9.16 9.32
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 24.36 24.48 19.32 16.85 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.97 0.98 0.77 0.67
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
Degree of Utilization, x 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.18
Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 743 736 736 698
Lanes
Intersection Settings
7 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
347
Volume to Capacity (v/c): 0.585
Level Of Service: D
Delay (sec / veh): 40.7
Analysis Period: 15 minutes
Analysis Method: HCM 6th Edition
Control Type: Signalized
Intersection 5: Main St/Laurel Rd
Intersection Level Of Service Report
Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Yes
Curb Present No No No No
Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00
Exit Pocket Length [ft] 0.00 0.00 480.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No. of Lanes in Exit Pocket 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Entry Pocket Length [ft] 305.00 100.00 100.00 215.00 100.00 215.00 160.00 100.00 100.00 300.00 100.00 100.00 No. of Lanes in Entry Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0
Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Configuration
Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Name Main St Main St Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Intersection Setup
8 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
, I,-. , I,-. ,,Ir ,,..
348
Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 1 0 0
v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0
v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0
v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0
v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 2 0 2 0
v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 2 0 2 0
Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Presence of On-Street Parking No No No No No No No No
Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 134 435 114 76 581 205 196 62 112 263 242 155 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 33 109 28 19 145 51 49 16 28 66 60 39 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Peak Hour Factor 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.9000 0.9000 0.9000 0.6700 0.6700 0.6700 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 107 348 91 61 465 164 176 56 101 176 162 104 Right Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Site-Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In-Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Growth Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Base Volume Input [veh/h] 107 348 91 61 465 164 176 56 101 176 162 104 Name Main St Main St Laurel Rd Laurel Rd
Volumes
9 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
349
Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0
Pedestrian Walk [s] 0
Pedestrian Signal Group 0
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No No No
Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No No No
Minimum Recall No No No No No No No No
l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.4 0.0 2.0 3.1 0.0 l1, Start-Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Rest In Walk No No No No
Delayed Vehicle Green [s] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 18 0 0 24 0 0 26 0 0 30 0
Walk [s] 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0
Vehicle Extension [s] 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Split [s] 15 38 0 15 38 0 18 40 0 22 44 0
All red [s] 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Amber [s] 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 3.0 4.4 0.0 3.0 4.1 0.0 Maximum Green [s] 20 40 0 16 40 0 16 20 0 16 20 0
Minimum Green [s] 6 10 0 6 10 0 6 6 0 6 6 0
Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - - Lead - - Lead - -
Auxiliary Signal Groups
Signal Group 5 2 0 1 6 0 7 4 0 3 8 0
Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Phasing & Timing
Lost time [s] 0.00
Permissive Mode SingleBand
Offset Reference Lagging Force-Off
Offset [s] 108.0
Actuation Type Fully actuated
Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated
Cycle Length [s] 115
Signal Coordination Group -
Located in CBD No
Intersection Settings
10 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
350
95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 176.16 211.84 201.82 102.01 329.07 307.87 125.54 68.29 128.93 383.09 437.78 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 7.05 8.47 8.07 4.08 13.16 12.31 5.02 2.73 5.16 15.32 17.51 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft/ln] 97.87 121.47 114.19 56.67 210.19 193.73 69.74 37.94 71.63 252.73 296.56 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh/ln] 3.91 4.86 4.57 2.27 8.41 7.75 2.79 1.52 2.87 10.11 11.86 Critical Lane Group Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Lane Group LOS E C C E C C D D D F D
d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 55.59 20.50 20.61 58.59 26.54 26.89 54.00 42.13 44.17 83.83 51.46 X, volume / capacity 0.83 0.33 0.33 0.78 0.52 0.52 0.76 0.21 0.45 0.95 0.94 Lane Group Results
PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 4.20 1.02 1.11 4.96 2.40 2.69 1.80 0.13 0.47 35.75 8.85 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 k, delay calibration 0.04 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.37 0.09 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 51.39 19.48 19.50 53.63 24.14 24.20 52.21 42.00 43.70 48.08 42.61 c, Capacity [veh/h] 161 861 801 98 795 719 256 296 250 276 423 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 1855 1724 1767 1855 1679 3431 1855 1565 1767 1735 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.23 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.09 0.46 0.46 0.05 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.24 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 10 53 53 6 49 49 9 18 18 18 28 l2, Clearance Lost Time [s] 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.50 3.50 2.00 3.40 3.40 2.00 3.10 l1_p, Permitted Start-Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 4.00 5.40 5.40 4.00 5.10 C, Cycle Length [s] 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 Lane Group L C C L C C L C R L C
Lane Group Calculations
11 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with
351
Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results
d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 55.59 20.54 20.61 58.59 26.64 26.89 54.00 42.13 44.17 83.83 51.46 51.46 Movement LOS E C C E C C D D D F D D
d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 27.43 29.52 49.04 64.36
Approach LOS C C D E
d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 40.70
Intersection LOS D
Intersection V/C 0.585
Other Modes
g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft²/ped] 2019.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 47.03 47.03 47.03 47.03
I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.738 2.740 2.671 2.298 Crosswalk LOS B B B B
s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 565 565 602 677 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 29.59 29.61 28.11 25.18
I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.123 2.271 2.170 2.649 Bicycle LOS B B B B
Ring 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 2 5 6 7 8 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ring 1 1 2 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sequence
12 Administrative Report
TJKM
Citywide Model
11/16/2023
Scenario 1: 1 Existing Conditions AM
Version 2020 (SP 0-6)
Generated with

Oakley City CouncilApril 28, 2026

Oakley City Council
April 28, 2026