Oakley City Council
October 13, 2026

July 2026
c. As discussed above, the City’s General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to hazardous materials would be less-than-significant with implementation of General Plan policies and other state, local, and federal regulations.

The nearest school relative to the project site is Faith Christian School, located approximately 0.91-mile northwest of the site. Therefore, future development of the project site 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.

Impacts related to such were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and future development of the project site would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
d. As discussed above, the City’s General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and other state, local, and federal regulations.

The CalEPA has compiled a list of data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements, pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. The components of the Cortese List include the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,33 the list of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database,34 the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, 35 and the list of
active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB.36 The project site is not included on the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, or the list of solid waste disposal sites. In addition, the project site is not included on the list of LUST sites from the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, or the list of active CDO and CAO from the SWRCB. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. According to the General Plan EIR, the two nearest airports are Buchanan Field and Byron Airport, which are 20 miles and 14 miles, respectively, from the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would not occur related to interfering with any airport land use plan or otherwise creating an airport-related safety hazard and risk to people residing or working in the General Plan area.

The nearest airport to the project site is Byron Airport, located approximately 9.75 miles south of the project site, and thus, the project site is not located within two miles of any public airports and does not fall within an airport land use plan area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an airport-related safety hazard or excessive noise 33 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese). Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,FUDS &status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST+%28CORTES E%29. Accessed June 2026. 34 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=1543378531.

Accessed June 2026. 35 State Water Resources Control Board. Sites Identified With Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside The Waste Management Unit. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2026/02/CorteseList-Solid-Waste-Facilities_2026.pdf. Accessed June 2026. 36 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed June 2026. 133
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
f. The General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts related to interfering with an adopted emergency response plan, or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

During operation, future development of the project site would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. During future construction of the project site, 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, any potential internal roadways on the project site would be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Future development of the project site would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area. As a result, future development of the project site 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, and impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
g. The General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts from wildland hazards would be less than significant.

The project site is not located within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The nearest High or Very FHSZ is located approximately 3.8-mile to the southwest of the site,37 and the project site is separated from such areas by existing urban development, which serve as a fire break to the project site. In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code (CFC), as adopted by Chapter 7.1.102 of the City’s Municipal Code, including installation of fire sprinkler systems. The project site is not located on a substantial slope, and the project area does not include any existing features that would substantially increase fire risk for future residents. Given that the project site is located within an urbanized area and is situated adjacent to existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, the project would not result in substantial fire risks related to installation or maintenance of such infrastructure.

Based on the above, impacts related to wildfire risks were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the site would not be subject to any peculiar hazards related to wildfire risk.
37 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Accessed April 2026.
134
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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 onor off-site;    ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
  
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
  
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?   
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?   
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
  
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of a primarily vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site and an approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site.

The site is located in an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (Zone X) identified on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 06013C0360G (see Figure 5).
38 The City of Oakley does not have any specific requirements for projects located in Flood Zone X.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies and actions from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to hydrology and water quality that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 4.8.11. Coordinate with the DWD Groundwater Sustainability Agency to identify, monitor, and address land uses and activities that could result in contamination of groundwater supplies to minimize the risk of such contamination.
38 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0360G. Effective March 21, 2017. 135
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Figure 5
Flood Insurance Rate Map 06013C0360G
136
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Policy 4.9.3. Encourage beneficial water reuse to improve regional groundwater quality.

Such wastewater reclamation concepts shall be incorporated into resource management programs and land use planning.

Policy 4.10.1. Work cooperatively with Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CFCWCD) to ensure and enhance flood protection in the City of Oakley.

Policy 4.10.2. Pursue and achieve compliance with all regional, State, and Federal regulations related to flood control, drainage, and water quality, including groundwater quality.

Policy 4.10.3. Continue to work cooperatively with Contra Costa Water District to address potential issues associated with the Contra Costa Canal and adjacent lands, including flooding, water quality, and drainage.

Policy 4.10.7. Land use planning and zoning should be the primary means for flood management in preference to structural improvements, where possible.

Policy 4.10.9. Detention basin design shall ensure that water entering the basin outflows completely within a specified time, thus minimizing standing water or longterm saturation within the basin.

Policy 8.1.5. Require an erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a civil engineer, or other qualified professional, as part of any grading permit application for new development. The erosion and sediment control plan shall delineate measures to appropriately and effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.

Policy 8.2.1. Support and participate in planning efforts undertaken at the local, regional, State, and Federal levels to improve flood management facilities and dam safety throughout Contra Costa County.

Policy 8.2.2. Maintain, review at least every five years or earlier if necessary, and update as necessary, City flood safety plans, floodplain management ordinances, zoning ordinance, building codes and other related sections of the Municipal Code to reflect Safety Element goals, 8-27 policies and standards, applicable Federal and State law, and National Flood Insurance Program requirements. Require applications for development at urban or suburban densities in 100-year floodplain areas, and/or other flood-prone areas where there is a serious risk to life and property to demonstrate appropriate solutions or be denied.

Policy 8.2.3. Consider the risks of flooding and rising sea levels in the planning and environmental review of new development projects by requiring all development projects that require a building permit to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would not result in increases in the peak flow runoff to adjacent lands or drainage facilities that would exceed the design capacity of the drainage facility or result in an increased potential for off-site flooding. Ensure that 137
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
adequate drainage and erosion control measures are provided during project construction.

Policy 8.2.4. Ensure that construction activities and new development will not result in adverse impacts to existing properties and flood control and drainage structures.

Policy 8.2.5. Unless otherwise mitigated, require new structures to be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. All new development within an identified Flood Hazard Area shall be built according to Federal Emergency Management Agency standards.

Policy 8.2.6. Ensure that any development activity that requires a grading permit does not impact adjacent properties, local creeks and storm drainage systems by designing and building the site to drain properly to minimize drainage issues and erosion.

Policy 8.2.12. Require the review of development proposals near the shoreline of the Delta and within flood-prone areas by the CCCFWD, as an advisory agency, prior to approval by the City.

Discussion
a, The General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality in violation with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards would be less than significant. The following discussion provides a summary of the future development’s potential to violate 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
Construction activities associated with future development of the project site such as grading, excavation, and trenching would result in the disturbance of on-site soils. The exposed soils have the potential to affect water quality in two ways: 1) suspended soil particles and sediments transported through runoff; or 2) sediments transported as dust that eventually reach local water bodies. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites also have the potential to enter runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents. Sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Impacts from construction-related activities would generally be short-term.

The State Water Resources Control Board (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 ci-ciii.
138
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
General Construction Permit prior to receipt of any construction permits. The State’s General Construction Permit requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for future development of the site. A SWPPP describes BMPs to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater and must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the future development project.

Because future development of the project site would disturb greater than one acre of land, future development would be subject to the requirements of the State’s General Construction Permit and, with implementation of the required SWPPP and BMPs included therein, future development of the project site would not result in a violation of water quality standards and/or degradation of water quality.

Furthermore, pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 6.9.306 and 6.9.404, submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan would be required with submittal of the grading permit application to ensure water quality is not degraded during future development of the project site. The plan would include erosion and sediment control measures that would be implemented during grading and would be approved by the City Engineer. Given the required submittal and approval of a SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plan, future development of the project site would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Post-Construction Operations
Following construction of future on-site residences, the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces and landscaped areas, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. As such, the potential for erosion and associated impacts to water quality would be reduced.

However, the addition of impervious surfaces on the site would result in the generation of urban runoff during project operations, which could contain pollutants if the runoff comes into contact with vehicle fluids on parking surfaces and/or landscape fertilizers and herbicides. All municipalities within Contra Costa County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal of the Countywide NPDES permit.

The City of Oakley has adopted the County C.3 Stormwater Standards, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 sf or more of impervious area to contain and treat all stormwater runoff from the project site. While development is not proposed at this time, a total of five single-family residences are anticipated to be constructed in the future, as well as associated utilities and an access roadway, on the 5.4-acre project site. Therefore, reasonable assumption exists that 10,000 sf or more of impervious surfaces would be added to the project site, and future development of the project site would be subject to the County C.3 Stormwater Standards.

Future development of the project site would also be subject to the requirements of the SWRCB and the RWQCB, as well as the County C.3 Standards, which are included in the City’s NPDES General Permit. In addition, future development of the project site would be required to adhere to Title 6, Chapter 11, of the Municipal Code, which establishes standards for stormwater management and discharge. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant would submit a Stormwater Control Plan 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 future on-site residences.
139
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
The applicant for the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP. Pursuant to Section

6.11.212 of the Oakley Municipal Code, the applicant would be required to apply for a Water Discharger Identification (WDID) number from the State Water Board prior to the issuance of a grading permit and submit a SWPPP. In order to obtain a grading permit, the WDID number must be obtained and noted on the cover sheet of the grading plans.

Furthermore, the applicant would be required to submit a stormwater control plan and implement conditions of approval that reduce stormwater pollutant charges. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant is required to prepare an interim and final erosion and sediment control plan, which would include a delineation and brief description of the measures to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site, as well as runoff and erosion control measures.

In addition, future development of the project site would be required to comply with General Plan Policy 8.2.3, which requires all new development to demonstrate how stormwater runoff would be detained or retained on-site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility. As such, future development of the project site would be required to submit a drainage report as part of the development review process.

Conclusion
Based on the above, given compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and existing County regulations, impacts related to water quality would not occur during future project construction or operations. Impacts related to violation of water quality standards/waste discharge requirement, altering the drainage pattern of the site resulting in erosion or siltation, increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise degrading water quality during construction were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for such topics.
b,e As noted in the General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on groundwater supplies. Water service for the future on-site residences would be provided by the DWD through new connections to existing utility lines within Sellers Avenue. According to the DWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the primary water supply for distribution is treated surface water.39 As a result, any increase in water demand associated with future development of the project site would be primarily met through surface water supply, rather than groundwater.

The DWD operates a groundwater supply system that currently consists of groundwater extracted from two wells in Oakley, which is then conveyed in a dedicated well supply pipeline to a blending facility. According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the wells are connected to the East Contra Costa Subbasin underlying the City. The East Contra Costa Subbasin has been designated as a medium-priority basin by the Department of Water Resources, and is not in overdraft conditions.40
The project site represents a small area compared to the overall surface area of the East Contra Costa Subbasin. Therefore, any new impervious surfaces associated with future 39 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 40 Ibid. 140
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
development of the project site would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge within the East Contra Costa Subbasin.

Based on the above, future development of the project site would not result in substantial adverse effects related to groundwater use or water supply. The General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Thus, impacts related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
c.iv. The General Plan EIR included an analysis of flood risks associated with implementation of the General Plan, including identification of 100-year flood hazard areas within the City.

The General Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of drainage facilities within the City and compliance with General Plan policies and programs related to flooding would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. As discussed above, according to FEMA FIRM Panel Number 06013C0360G, the site is located in Zone X, identified as an area of minimal flood hazard. The City of Oakley does not have any specific requirements for projects located in Flood Zone X.

Thus, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
d. As discussed under question ‘c.iv’ above, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Thus, future development of the project site would not be subject to substantial flooding risks. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley is subject to substantial risks related to tsunamis, and with implementation of General Plan policies related to seismic activity and construction standards, the impacts due to seiches and mudflows would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts related to flooding, tsunamis, and seiches were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic. 141
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Physically divide an established community?   
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
  
Environmental Setting
The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site, and an approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as Rural Residential and the site is zoned R-40.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to land use and planning that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 2.1.4. Discourage development that results in land use incompatibility.

Specifically, require buffers between uses where appropriate and discourage locating sensitive uses (residential) adjacent to existing potentially objectionable uses or locating potentially objectionable uses adjacent to sensitive uses. Examples of buffering techniques including, but are not limited to, landscaping, setbacks, screening and, where necessary, construction of sound walls.

Policy 2.1.5. Promote land use compatibility through use restrictions, development standards, environmental review, and design considerations.

Policy 2.2.6. Encourage residential development to occur in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses.

Policy 2.2.7. Encourage new neighborhoods to include a variety of housing types and a mix and distribution of land uses, including schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, and services, that reduce auto trips and support walking, biking, and transit use.

Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land use so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community or isolate an existing land use. While development of the project site is not proposed at this time, a total of five single-family residences are anticipated to be constructed on-site in the future, which would be consistent with the existing Rural Residential land use designation on the project site and the rural residences surrounding the project site. Therefore, future development of the project site would be a continuation of the surrounding development and would not isolate an existing land use. Furthermore, 142
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s existing land use and zoning designations and, thus, would be consistent with the type and intensity of development that has previously been anticipated for the site by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The EIR concluded that the General Plan would not result in new development or features that would divide existing residential neighborhoods or communities, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. As such, impacts related to physically dividing an established community were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. b. Future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential and zoning designation of R-40. As discussed throughout this Modified Initial Study, future development of the project site would not result in any new significant environmental effects that were not previously identified in the General Plan EIR and could not be substantially mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies and standards, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. In addition, future development of the project site would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including, but not limited to, the City’s noise standards, applicable regulations related to stormwater, and development standards included in the City of Oakley Municipal Code. For example, because the future on-site development would introduce new residents, the project applicant would be required to pay the City’s parks and recreation impact fees. Furthermore, in compliance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, future development would be subject to pay all applicable fees according to the Fee Zone Map of the ECCC HCP/NCP prior to construction, and would be required to complete preconstruction surveys for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and migratory birds. Therefore, impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. 143
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
  
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
  
Environmental Setting
According to the City’s General Plan EIR, buildout of the General Plan is not expected to impact mineral resources. The Oakley 2020 General Plan Background Report, Chapter 9 lists the only mineral resource currently mined in the City of Oakley as sand. The report also states that Contra Costa County has crushed rock, shale, sand, and sandstone deposits, but impacts would not occur due to the distance of such deposits from the City of Oakley.

General Plan Policies
The City of Oakley General Plan Update does not include any policies related to mineral resources that apply to the proposed project.

Discussion
a,b. The General Plan EIR concluded that because of the largely urbanized nature of the General Plan area, and because the City does not include areas identified for the protection of mineral resources, implementation of the General Plan would not result in any impact to mineral resources. Given that mineral resources are not located on-site, the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects to mineral resources such that further CEQA review for this topic would be required. As such, impacts have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR.
144
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
  
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?   
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
  
Environmental Setting
The following terms are referenced in this discussion:
• 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 discussion will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.
• Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The average sound level over a 24-hour period, with a penalty of 10 dB applied to noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).

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 residences, schools, libraries, hospitals and passive recreational areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

The nearest sensitive use includes the rural residence located approximately 150 feet to the west of the project site.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to noise that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 2.1.4. Discourage development that results in land use incompatibility.

Specifically, require buffers between uses where appropriate and discourage locating sensitive uses (residential) adjacent to existing potentially objectionable uses or locating potentially objectionable uses adjacent to sensitive uses. Examples of buffering techniques including, but are not limited to, landscaping, setbacks, screening and, where necessary, construction of sound walls.

Policy 2.2.10. Locate residences away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents.
145
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Policy 9.1.1. New development shall use the land use compatibility table shown in Figure 9-1 and the standards contained within Tables 9-7 and 9-8 for determining noise compatibility.

Policy 9.1.2. New development of noise-sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level due to non-transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of Table 9-1 as measured immediately within the property line or within a designated outdoor activity area (location is at the discretion of the Community Development Director) of the new development, unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards specified in Table 9-1.

Policy 9.1.3. Noise created by new proposed non-transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards of Table 9-7 as measured immediately within the property line of lands designated for noise-sensitive uses.

Policy 9.1.5. Noise created by new transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified in Table 9-9 at outdoor activity areas or interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 9.1.6. It is anticipated that roadway improvement projects will be needed to accommodate build-out of the general plan. Therefore, existing noisesensitive uses may be exposed to increased noise levels due to roadway improvement projects as a result of increased roadway capacity, increases in travel speeds, etc. It may not be practical to reduce increased traffic noise levels consistent with those contained Table 9-9. Therefore, as an alternative, the following criteria may be used as a test of significance for roadway improvement projects:
• 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 noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise- sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise- sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant.

Policy 9.1.7. Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the standards of Tables 9-7 and 9-9, the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design- related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project.
146
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Policy 9.1.8. Obtrusive, discretionary noise generated from residences, motor vehicles, commercial establishments, and/or industrial facilities should be minimized or prohibited.

Policy 9.2.1. New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed the levels specified in Table 9-9, unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise and noise levels in interior spaces to the levels specified in Table 9-

9. City Noise Standards
The City of Oakley General Plan Noise Element establishes a noise level standard of 60 dB as normally acceptable at residential land uses. Based upon General Plan Figure 9-1, an ambient noise level of 65 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable for single-family residential uses. In addition to the policies listed above, Policy 9.1.6 in the City’s General Plan is summarized in Table

6. Table 6
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: Oakley General Plan, Focused General Plan Update, Adopted January 11, 2022.

Pursuant to the City’s General Plan Table 9-7, with regard to 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).

Discussion
a. The General Plan EIR included an analysis of potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of new development occurring pursuant to the General Plan.

The General Plan EIR concluded that new development within the City would avoid significant impacts by conforming with requirements of the General Plan policies. Through compliance with applicable General Plan policies and programs, impacts related to increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant.

The following discussion provides an analysis of potential construction and operational noise effects which may be peculiar to future development of the project site.

Construction Noise
During future construction of residential uses on-site, as facilitated by the proposed project, heavy-duty equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would result in temporary noise level increases. Standard construction equipment, such as backhoes, dozers, and dump trucks would be used on-site. Project haul truck traffic on local roadways would also result in a temporary noise level increase during construction activities. Table 7 shows the predicted construction noise levels for future development of the project site.
147
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Table 7
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.

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 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.

As the majority of the project site consists of a vacant lot, the use of a concrete saw during site preparation construction activities would be unlikely. Nonetheless, based on Table 7, activities involved in typical construction would generate maximum noise levels up to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. As one increases the distance from a source of noise, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects of the source. The noise levels from a source will decrease at a rate of approximately 6.0 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source. As previously discussed, the nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the rural residence located approximately 150 feet to the west of the project site. A distance of 150 feet would result in a maximum noise level of approximately 81 dB. Nonetheless, future development of the project site would be consistent with the current General Plan land use and zoning designations, and, therefore, construction noise associated with future buildout of the project site has been anticipated, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects related to an increase in ambient noise levels. As discussed above, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan policies and programs would reduce the impact of construction-related noise to a less-than-significant level.

Operational Noise
Noise generated during future operations on the project site would be limited to typical residential-related on-site noise and traffic noise, as discussed in further detail below.

On-Site Noise
Future operation of five single-family residences on-site would include potential on-site noise sources, including HVAC equipment, vehicle movements, and landscaping maintenance equipment. Assuming the project HVAC systems and maintenance equipment would be in normal working order, such stationary noise sources associated with future development of the project site would not substantially increase noise levels 148
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
from what currently exists in the project area. In addition, given that the nearest noisesensitive receptor is located approximately 150 feet from the project site, on-site operations associated with future development of the project site would not conflict with the City’s applicable noise standards at the nearest receptor. Furthermore, future development of the project site is not anticipated to contribute a measurable operational noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment at nearby sensitive receptor locations. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. Therefore, operational noise associated with future development of the project site with five single-family residences would be consistent with the existing residential uses in the project vicinity Five single-family residences is consistent with the project site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations and, as a result, future development of the on-site residences and associated operational noise level increases have been anticipated by the City. As discussed above, the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan Policies, impacts related to operational noise from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
The primary noise source associated with future operation of the proposed project would be traffic noise. Pursuant to Table 9-3 of the General Plan, noise level increases resulting from traffic associated with new projects should be mitigated so as not to exceed 65 dBA Ldn for residential uses.

Based on Table 9-2 of the General Plan, the nearest measured roadway segment, Delta Road east of Main Street, has existing traffic noise levels of 54.1 dB at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadway. As shown in Table 6, where existing noise levels are less than 60 dB, an increase in 5.0 dB would be a significant impact. Generally, a doubling of traffic volumes is required to increase traffic noise levels to 3.0 dB, and an increase of more than double would be required for traffic noise to increase by 5.0 dB. According to Table 3-2 of the General Plan, Sellers Avenue south of Cypress Road experiences approximately 3,500 trips per day. Due to the low number of residential units anticipated to be developed on-site, future on-site residences would not result in new vehicle trips such that a significant increase in traffic noise would occur. Specifically, according to the air quality/GHG modeling prepared for the proposed project, future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in a maximum of 48 trips per day. As such, given the comparatively minor contribution of future project-generated traffic, the increase in traffic associated with future project-generated trips is not anticipated to increase ambient noise levels greater than +5.0 dB. In addition, given that the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site, vehicle trips generated by future development of the project site were anticipated within the General Plan EIR analysis of traffic noise.

Impact 3.13A of the General Plan EIR determined that new development may increase traffic volumes along existing roadways and introduce traffic along new roadways, thereby exposing residents to excessive roadside noise levels and creating a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the applicable General Plan policies, listed above, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Future development of the project site would be required to comply with all relevant General Plan Policies, listed above.

Compliance with all relevant polices would reduce anticipated traffic noise associated with future development of the project site to a less-than-significant impact. 149
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise levels related to vehicle traffic.

Conclusion
Based on the above, future construction and operation of five residences on-site would not result in the 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 City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code. Thus, impacts related to noise level increases and conflicts with the City’s noise level standards were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

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

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 8, 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 Table 8, 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 General Plan EIR included an analysis of potential vibration impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan, and determined that implementation of the General Plan policies and programs would avoid significant impacts. Therefore, through adherence to the requirements, policies, and strategies in the General Plan, the General Plan EIR concluded that vibration impacts would be less than significant.

During future project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction. The nearest sensitive receptor is located approximately 150 feet from where construction activities would occur within the project area.

As shown in Table 9, construction vibration levels anticipated for future development of the project site would be less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet or more.

Sensitive receptors that could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially 150
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 150 feet, or further, from the site boundaries.

Table 8
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.

Table 9
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.

Furthermore, future development of the project site would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the future on-site residences would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Additionally, future construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours, consistent with Section 4.2.208 of the City’s Municipal Code.
151
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Based on the above, future construction and operation of five residences on-site would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration. Thus, impacts related to vibration were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
c. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the public airport nearest to the planning area is the Byron Airport, which is located approximately 14 miles southeast of the planning area. In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, according to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to excessive noise levels from private airstrips or heliports would not occur during buildout of the General Plan, and further discussion of noise-related impacts from aviation facilities was not included in the General Plan EIR. The nearest airport to the site is Byron Airport, located approximately 9.75 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, future development of the project site would not expose people residing in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports.

Based on the above, impacts related to aircraft noise was adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review for this topic.
152
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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?
  
Environmental Setting
The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site, and an approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. The City of Oakley General Plan designates the site as Rural Residential and the site is zoned R-40.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to population and housing that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 2.1.5. Promote land use compatibility through use restrictions, development standards, environmental review, and design considerations.

Policy 4.1.3. Analyze conformity with the growth management standards for all development projects, such as subdivision maps or land use permits.

Policy 4.1.4. Require from all new development, including major modifications to existing development, the construction of all necessary on- or off-site infrastructure and public services needed to serve the project in accordance with City standards.

Discussion
a. The General Plan concluded that the City of Oakley intends that new development would not be permitted unless the development is consistent with the City’s performance standards. Such standards would mitigate impacts resulting from traffic and population growth and, therefore, impacts related to inducing growth and an increase in the number of housing units and jobs would be less than significant. Future development of the project site is anticipated to include the construction of five single-family residences on a site that is designated for residential uses. Based on the General Plan’s average person per household value for single-family uses of 3.41, the five single-family residences would generate a population increase of approximately 17 residents, assuming all on-site residents are new to the City. The 2024 U.S. Census estimated the population of Oakley to be approximately 47,158.41 An increase in population of 17 residents would constitute an approximately 0.04 percent increase in the City’s population, which is not considered 41 U.S. Census Bureau. Quick Facts, City of Oakley, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oakleycitycalifornia/PST045224. Accessed April 2026. 153
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
substantial growth. In addition, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND, adequate utility infrastructure would be available to support the future development of the project site. Furthermore, future on-site residential development would be consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. As such, future development of the project site with residential uses, as well as the associated increase in population, has been anticipated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, future development of the project site would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Based on the above, impacts related to inducing substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
b. The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in a net increase in housing units and would not have direct physical impacts related to the displacement of housing units, and a less-than-significant impact would result. The project site is currently vacant with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment and does not include existing housing or other habitable structures. As such, future development of the project site would not displace existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Based on the above, impacts related to displacement of substantial housing or people were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. 154
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
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:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Fire protection?   
b. Police protection?   
c. Schools?   
d. Parks?   
e. Other Public Facilities?   
Environmental Setting
The City of Oakley is served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) for fire protection services. The CCCFPD employs over 670 individuals and operates out of 35 fire stations located throughout the jurisdictional area.
42 Oakley is served by Station 93, located at
530 O’Hara Avenue, approximately 3.4 miles northwest of the project site. The City of Oakley Police Department (OPD) is located at 3231 Main Street, approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the project site and would provide police protection to the future development on the project site.

The City of Oakley is served by the Oakley Union School District, which has seven elementary schools and two middle schools; the Liberty Union High School District, which has one high school in Oakley; and Antioch Unified School District, which has one K-8 school and two high schools with enrollment boundaries in Oakley.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to public services that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 4.1.4. Require from all new development, including major modifications to existing development, the construction of all necessary on- or off-site infrastructure and public services needed to serve the project in accordance with City standards.

Policy 4.2.1. Permit development only when financing mechanisms are in place or committed which assure that adopted performance standards for public facilities will be met.

Policy 4.2.2. Ensure that all future development projects provide public infrastructure and public services that fully serve the needs of the project and address any impacts created by such projects.

Policy 4.2.3. Ensure that new development does not adversely affect public facilities or services.

Policy 4.2.5. Require new development to pay its fair share of the cost of all existing public facilities and services it utilizes, as appropriate, based upon the 42 Contra Costa County. Fire Protection Districts. Available at: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/1550/Fire-ProtectionDistricts. Accessed May 2026. 155
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
demand for these facilities and services that can be attributed to new development.

Policy 4.2.6. Require new development to pay all costs of upgrading existing public facilities, constructing new facilities or expanding services that are needed to serve new development.

Policy 4.2.7. Financial impacts of new development on public facilities and services should generally be determined during the project review process and may be based on the analysis contemplated under the growth management program (Land Use Element) or otherwise. As part of the project approval, specific findings shall be adopted which relate to the demand for public facilities and services and how the demand affects the service standards included in the growth management program.

Policy 4.4.2. Require that new development pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services.

Policy 4.4.3. Identify needed upgrades to fire facilities and equipment during project environmental review and planning activities.

Policy 4.4.4. Incorporate analysis of optimum fire and emergency service access into circulation system design to maximize the effectiveness of existing and proposed fire protection facilities.

Policy 4.5.2. Incorporate police protection standards and requirements into the land use planning process.

Policy 4.5.4. The City shall strive to provide sufficient personnel and capital facilities to ensure adequate police protection and appropriate response times.

Policy 4.5.5. Require that the Community Development Department refer, as appropriate, development proposals to the Police Department for review and comments.

Policy 4.5.7. Set fees to ensure that each dwelling unit, business, and vacant parcel pays a fair share of the cost of police services.

Policy 4.6.4. Encourage school districts to seek and receive their fair share of state and/or federal funds for school facilities.

Policy 4.6.5. Support the development of quality schools, to the extent possible, by coordinating development review with local school districts including such activities as designating school sites, obtaining dedications of school sites.

Consider supporting appropriate local fees, special taxes, and bond issues intended for school construction.

Policy 4.6.6. Ensure that school facility impact fees are collected and work with developers and school districts to establish mitigation measures to ensure the availability of adequate school facilities.

Policy 4.6.9. The hearing body reviewing residential projects shall consider the availability of educational facilities and impact on school capacities. 156
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Policy 4.6.11. Adequate provision of schools shall be assisted by coordinating review of new development with school districts and other service providers through the project review process, the environmental review process, and through joint planning with local school districts.

Policy 7.1.1. Develop and maintain a park system that provides 6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, consistent with the City of Oakley Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, including a minimum of 3 acres of community parks, 2 acres of neighborhood parks, and 1 acre of open space, special recreation areas, and greenbelts per thousand population.

Policy 7.1.3. Provide recreation services that enhance the quality of life and meet the changing needs of residents.

Policy 7.1.10. Require all development to dedicate parkland and/or pay in lieu, as well as pay impact fees sufficient to meet the added demand for parkland facilities.

Discussion
a,b. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable General Plan policies and programs, impacts related to strain on fire protection and law enforcement would be less than significant. While future development of the project site would result in increased demands on fire and police protection services, such demands would be consistent with what has been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

As previously discussed, future development of the project site would result in the development of five single-family residences. As new residences typically generate a demand for fire services, an increase in demand for fire services would likely occur with implementation of the project. However, future development of the project site would be subject to participation in a Community Facilities District (CFD) prepared and administered by the CCCFPD. Participation in the CFD would mitigate for any increased demands on fire services that may result from the on-site residences, as well as 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.

Future development of the project site would be subject to the fire facilities impact fees established by the City of Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.2.502. Payment of the required impact fee would mitigate any potential impacts caused by increased demands on fire services that may result from future development of the project site and ensure that the proposed project conforms with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.4.2.

Additionally, future development of the project site 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, or lead to a degradation in response times. Furthermore, future development of the project site would comply with all applicable State and local requirements related to fire safety and security, including installation of fire sprinklers.

Compliance with such standards would minimize fire and police protection demands associated with the project.

With respect to police protection services, the future five single-family residences would result in an increase in demand for police services. However, future development of the project site would be subject to Section 9.2.404 of the Municipal Code, which establishes the City’s Public Facilities Fee. Revenue raised by payment of the Public Facilities Fee is 157
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
used to defray the costs for City-owned public facilities. Therefore, future development of the project site would be required to pay a fair share of the cost associated with the provision of police protection services. Compliance with Section 9.2.404 of the Municipal Code would ensure that future development of the project site conforms with the City of Oakley’s General Plan Policy 4.5.7, which requires that each dwelling unit, business, and vacant parcel pays a fair share of the cost of police services. Given the payment of fees in accordance with City of Oakley Municipal Code, future development of the project site is not expected to cause significant degradation to response times or service ratios, which would induce the need for physically altered or expanded governmental facilities.

Based on the above, impacts related to the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
c. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact to schools.

The Oakley Union Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District provide public educational services to the project site. As discussed throughout this IS/MND, the reasonably foreseeable consequence of approval of the proposed project is future development of the site with five single-family residences. According to the Oakley Union School District 2024/25 Demographics and Enrollment Projections, the Oakley Union School District student yield rate is 0.399 students per housing unit.43 As such, future development of the project site with five single-family residences could increase the amount of school age children in the City by approximately two students.44 Given the relatively small increase in student population that could occur as a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the proposed project, the increase in demand for school facilities would not be considered substantial. Nonetheless, 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, Policy 4.6.6, set forth in the General Plan, ensures that school facility impact fees are collected and requires that the City shall work with developers and school districts to establish mitigation measures to ensure the availability of adequate school facilities.

Future development of the project site would be required to pay the applicable School Impact Mitigation Development Fee to the Oakley Union Elementary School District and Liberty Union High School District prior to the issuance of any building permits. 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 is deemed to be “full and 43 Oakley Union School District. 2024/25 Demographics and Enrollment Projections. November 2024. 44 While the project site is also located in the Liberty Union High School District, information related to the district’s student yield rate is not available. As such, the student yield rate for Oakley Union Elementary School District is assumed to cover students of all ages in the City of Oakley. 158
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
complete mitigation.” As such, according to Proposition 1A/SB 50, the payment of the necessary school impact fees for the project would be full and satisfactory CEQA mitigation, and would be sufficient in reducing the impacts associated with an increase in students from the project.

Based on the above, impacts related to the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. d-e. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact to parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities such as libraries.

Section 9.2.208 of the City of Oakley Municipal Code requires a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As discussed above, future development of the project site with five single-family residences would result in an increase of approximately 17 new residents to the City. As such, approximately 0.085-acre of parkland would be required (17 new residents x 0.005 acres/resident). Section 9.2.204 of the City’s Municipal Code requires subdividers of land to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu of, or a combination of both, for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes, including open space. As future development of the project site would not provide any dedicated parkland, future development of the project site would be required to pay in-lieu fees to be used for the provision of parks and recreational services within the City. Future residents of the proposed project would have access to nearby parks such as Sunset Park Athletic Complex, located approximately 1.7 miles from the site, Creekside Park, located approximately 1.8 miles from the site, and Shady Oak Park, located approximately 2.1 miles from the site.

The Oakley Branch Library provides library services to all residents of Oakley and is located at 1050 Neroly Road, approximately 2.2 miles west of the project site. 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 aforementioned facilities. While future buildout of the project site could result in an increase in demand for library services, due to the small increase in population associated with the future five on-site residences, existing library facilities would be sufficient to meet such demand. Furthermore, future development of the project site would be subject to payment of public facilities fees and the City’s park impact fee, in accordance with Chapter

9.2 of the Municipal Code, which would help to fund expanded public facilities, services, and parks within the City.

Based on the above, impacts related to the need for new or physically altered schools, parks, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
159
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
  
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
  
Environmental Setting
The City of Oakley is currently served by a variety of parks and recreational facilities including neighborhood parks, community parks, trails, accessible open space, and waterfront recreation.

The nearest recreational facilities to the project site are Sunset Park Athletic Complex, located approximately 1.7 miles to the south, Creekside Park, located approximately 1.8 miles to the northwest, and Shady Oak Park, located approximately 2.1 miles northwest. In addition, future residents of the project site could access Creekside Park by way of the Marsh Creek Regional Trail to the west of the project site.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to recreation that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 7.1.1. Develop and maintain a park system that provides 6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, consistent with the City of Oakley Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, including a minimum of 3 acres of community parks, 2 acres of neighborhood parks, and 1 acre of open space, special recreation areas, and greenbelts per thousand population.

Policy 7.1.3. Provide recreation services that enhance the quality of life and meet the changing needs of residents.

Policy 7.1.4. Design, develop and administer facilities and recreation services to avoid duplicating commercial and private facilities and services. The City will encourage private agencies to support or provide facilities needed to satisfy unmet needs.

Policy 7.1.10. Require all development to dedicate parkland and/or pay in lieu, as well as pay impact fees sufficient to meet the added demand for parkland facilities.

Discussion
a,b. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of applicable General Plan policies, implementation of the General Plan would result in a less-than-significant impact to parks and recreation facilities.

As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, future development of the project site is anticipated to include the construction of five single-family residences, which would result in a population increase of approximately 17 residents. The City of Oakley Municipal Code Section 9.2.208 requires 160
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and, as noted previously, 0.085- acre of parkland would be required to accommodate the anticipated population increase associated with future development of the project site.

Section 9.2.204 of the City’s Municipal Code requires subdividers of land to dedicate land, pay fees in lieu of, or a combination of both, for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes, including open space. Thus, as future development of the project site would not provide any dedicated parkland, future development would be required to pay in-lieu fees to be used for the provision of parks and recreational services within the City. Given that future development of the project site would be required to comply with Chapter 9.2 of the Municipal Code, park impact fees imposed by the City would generate revenue to acquire necessary land to develop new parks or rehabilitate existing neighborhood parks and recreation facilities within the City.

Based on the above, impacts related parks and recreation facilities were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such. 161
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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?   
Environmental Setting
According to the City’s Focused General Plan Update, Oakley has a suburban spatial structure characterized by relatively low densities and a prevalence of automobile travel compared to other travel modes. The Oakley roadway system can be described as a hierarchy of streets, ranging from freeways, arterials, collectors, local streets, and two-lane rural roads. The project site is bound by Sellers Avenue to the east, with connections to East Cypress Road to the north and Delta Road to the south. As shown in Figure 3-7 of the City’s Focused General Plan Update, the portion of Sellers Avenue near the project site is planned as a minor arterial street.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to transportation that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 3.1.3. Evaluate transportation performance with performance measures that emphasize the efficient movement of people and reduce rates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Policy 3.1.8. Encourage a multi-modal circulation system that supports non-automobile travel. Incorporate universal design techniques to accommodate pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Ensure compliance with the ADA.

Policy 3.2.1. Provide maximum opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian circulation on existing and new roadway facilities.

Policy 3.2.2. Enhance opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian activity in new public and private development projects.

Policy 3.2.3. Continue to improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities to ensure a safe and convenient a bicycle and pedestrian system that provides connections throughout Oakley and with neighboring areas, and is accessible to all users, including residents, recreational, and commuter users.

Policy 3.2.4. Design roadway facilities to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Include Class I, II, III, or IV bicycle facilities as appropriate. Through the Design Review process, provide sidewalks on all roads, except in cases where very low pedestrian volumes and/or safety considerations preclude 162
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
sidewalks. Reduce pedestrian crossing distances and pedestrian wait time to the extent feasible.

Policy 3.3.1. Design new roadways and facilities to accommodate public transit. Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to make it easier to get to transit services and improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.

Policy 3.3.2. Ensure that new public and private development supports public transit.

Policy 3.5.4. Incorporate mountable medians, shoulders to bypass queued vehicles, emergency signal preemption, and other features to improve emergency response times as appropriate and feasible on new roadways and on existing roadways.

Policy 3.7.3. Ensure that the density and mixture of future land uses (both public and private) encourage transit usage, walking and bicycling.

Policy 3.7.4. Provide sufficient parking, while considering the effect of parking supply on the use of alternate modes.

Policy 3.7.5. Mitigate development impacts and ensure that new development pays its own way.

Policy 3.7.6. New development should not result in inconsistent street frontage improvements along streets adjacent to and serving the project.

Policy 3.7.8. Encourage site planning that promotes all modes of transportation, and that minimizes vehicular trips between different land uses.

Policy 3.7.12. Support development that helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Strive to reduce the rate of VMT per Resident in Oakley by at least 15 percent compared to year 2020. Strive to ensure the rate of VMT per Employee in Oakley remains lower than the countywide average.

Policy 4.4.4. Incorporate analysis of optimum fire and emergency service access into circulation system design to maximize the effectiveness of existing and proposed fire protection facilities.

Discussion
a. Since the release of the General Plan EIR, the law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used LOS to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately removing LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the LCI, formerly the OPR, to prepare, develop, 163
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [LCI] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.”
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
The General Plan includes policies that provide for an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as for the needs of transit users. As such, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with plans, programs and policies regarding bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or decrease the performance and safety of such facilities, and a less than significant impact would occur.

The project site is served by Tri-Delta Transit, and is provided service by Route 373. The closet bus stop is located at the intersection of Main Street and Delta Road, which is located approximately 1.25 miles to the west of the project site. Future development facilitated by the proposed project is anticipated to generate few transit trips, and the new ridership generated by the project would be accommodated by the existing transit services.

With respect to bicycle facilities, limited facilities exist in the project area. Figure 3-8 of the City’s Focused General Plan Update shows that new bicycle facilities are planned to serve the area in the project vicinity, such as Class 4 bikeways along East Cypress Road, Laurel Road, and Neroly Road, and a Class 2 bikeway on Sellers Avenue adjacent to the project site. According to Figure 3-8 of the Focused General Plan Update, an existing Class 1 bikeway is located along Marsh Creek and an existing Class 2 bikeway is located along East Cypress Road, to the west and north of the project site, respectively. However, due 164
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
to the low number of residences anticipated to be constructed on-site, the project is anticipated to generate limited bicycle traffic.

With respect to pedestrian facilities, facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Due to the rural nature of the project site and adjacent areas, pedestrian facilities are limited. Apart from the sidewalk and crosswalks located north of the site on East Cypress Road and the sidewalk that extends onto Sellers Avenue that ends approximately 1.05 miles to the north of the project site, the surrounding area lacks other pedestrian amenities. As described throughout this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, development of the project site is not proposed at this time. Nonetheless, future buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities. Furthermore, due to the low number of residences anticipated to be constructed on-site, future development of the project site would not create a significant demand for pedestrian facilities in the site vicinity.

Conclusion
The project would not conflict with any existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. Impacts related to conflicting with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and effects peculiar to the proposed project would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not require further CEQA review for this topic.
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. Determination of impacts based on VMT have been required by law Statewide since July 1, 2020. Therefore, while the General Plan EIR did not analyze impacts to VMT associated with buildout of the General Plan, such impacts were analyzed within the Focused General Plan Update IS/ND. The IS/ND concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies aimed at reducing VMT, the VMT per capita with buildout of the Focused General Plan Update would be below the threshold of significance of 85 percent of existing VMT conditions. Based on LCI guidance, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant impact related to VMT.45 According to the air quality/GHG modeling prepared for the proposed project, future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in a maximum of 48 trips per day. In addition, future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. As such, future development of the project site would not be anticipated to result in VMT greater than what was previously anticipated for the project site.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). As such, impacts were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and effects peculiar to the proposed project would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not require further CEQA review for this topic. 45 Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.
165
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
c,d. As noted in the General Plan EIR, future development within the City and roadway improvements would be designed in accordance with City standards and would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies. Compliance with the City standards and policies would ensure that the future development would not significantly increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Therefore, the General Plan concluded that impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan would be less than significant.

While development of the project site is not proposed at this time, a total of five singlefamily residences are anticipated to be constructed in the future, as well as associated utilities and an access roadway from Sellers Avenue. Any improvements to Sellers Avenue, if necessary, would be required to comply with local, State, and federal standards, which would ensure that the alterations to the existing transportation network would not result in hazards due to a geometrical design feature. Furthermore, during future project construction, public roads in the vicinity would remain open and available for use by emergency vehicles and other traffic. In addition, any potential internal roadways on the project site would be designed consistent with applicable City of Oakley design standards and would provide adequate width at and along all potential driveways to allow for larger vehicles such as emergency trucks, garbage trucks, and delivery trucks.

Given that future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation, buildout of the project site and the potential for associated roadway design hazards has been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, all roadway/circulation system improvements included as part of future development of the project site would be consistent with applicable City engineering standards.

Based on the above, impacts related to substantially increasing hazards due to design features or incompatible uses were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and effects peculiar to the proposed project would not occur. Thus, the proposed project would not require further CEQA review for this topic.
166
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
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:

Significant Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact Adequately
Addressed in the
General Plan EIR
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.
  
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout, with the exception of an existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment in the northwestern corner and a 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue along the southwestern boundary. The project site has been subject to previous disturbance due to previous discing activities. The project site is located within an urban area of the City of Oakley and is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to tribal cultural resources that are relevant to the proposed project:

Policy 6.4.1. Preserve areas that have identifiable and important archaeological or paleontological significance.

Policy 6.4.2. Review new development projects to conduct location-specific searches through the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have significant potential for such resources.

Policy 6.4.3. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Policy 6.4.4. Consistent with State tribal consultation requirements, such as SB 18, consult with Native American tribes to identify any significant Native American tribal cultural resources that may be affected by new development and land use policy changes.
167
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Discussion
a,b. As discussed previously, the General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations, including the General Plan policies and actions, would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

It should be noted that AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1) notification to tribes is not required for the proposed project given that this checklist determines that additional environmental review is not required for the project, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, the project-specific CHRIS search indicated that cultural resources have not been documented within the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius. In addition, a search of the NAHC SLF did not yield any information regarding the presence of Tribal Cultural Resources within the project site. Furthermore, archaeological resources or any tribal cultural resources were not identified on-site during the field survey conducted as part of the Cultural Resource Study.

Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable General Plan policies and programs in the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, including Program 6.4.C, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist. General Plan Program 6.4.C would require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to cease all work within 100 feet of the discovery, notification of the Community Development Director, and examination of the resources by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures. Work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director. If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the Contra Costa County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

Additionally, as noted in the General Plan EIR, Health and Safety Code (Section 7052) prohibits disturbance of human remains except under certain conditions. The Code specifies procedures to be followed in the event that Native American graves are found. If human remains are discovered, ground-disturbing activities must cease. A coroner must then be contacted to analyze the remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the NAHC must be consulted on the matter.

Given that future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation, future buildout of the project site and potential disturbance of buried tribal cultural resources has been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. In addition, as previously discussed, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), “An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. […]” In the case of future development of the project site, compliance 168
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
with General Plan policies, as well as State and local regulations, would substantially mitigate potential project impacts to cultural resources.

Based on the above, the proposed project is not expected to adversely impact tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts related to resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
169
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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?
  
Environmental Setting
The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site and an approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. Sellers Avenue bounds the site to the east. The project site does not currently contain utility infrastructure; however, existing water, wastewater, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure is available in the site vicinity.

General Plan Policies
Listed below are relevant policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to utilities and service systems that may be applicable to the proposed project:

Policy 4.1.4. Require from all new development, including major modifications to existing development, the construction of all necessary on- or off-site infrastructure and public services needed to serve the project in accordance with City standards.

Policy 4.7.5. Consider solid waste disposal capacity in land use planning and permitting activities, along with other utility requirements, such as water and sewer service.

Policy 4.8.1. Coordinate future development with all water agencies to ensure facilities are available for proper water supply.
170
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Policy 4.8.4. Ensure that new development pays the costs related to the need for increased water system capacity.

Policy 4.8.12. Reduce the need for water system improvements by encouraging new development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use.

Policy 4.9.1. Coordinate future development with the Ironhouse Sanitary District to ensure facilities are available for proper wastewater management.

Policy 4.9.4. Reduce the need for wastewater collection and treatment associated with future growth by requiring new development to incorporate water conservation measures, which reduce flows into the sanitary sewer system.

Policy 8.2.3. Consider the risks of flooding and rising sea levels in the planning and environmental review of new development projects by requiring all development projects that require a building permit to demonstrate how storm water runoff will be detained or retained on-site, treated, and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process. Project applicants shall demonstrate that project implementation would not result in increases in the peak flow runoff to adjacent lands or drainage facilities that would exceed the design capacity of the drainage facility or result in an increased potential for off-site flooding. Ensure that adequate drainage and erosion control measures are provided during project construction.

Policy 8.2.4. Ensure that construction activities and new development will not result in adverse impacts to existing properties and flood control and drainage structures.

Policy 8.2.6. Ensure that any development activity that requires a grading permit does not impact adjacent properties, local creeks and storm drainage systems by designing and building the site to drain properly to minimize drainage issues and erosion.

Discussion
a-c. Brief discussions of the water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electrical, and telecommunications facilities that would serve future on-site development are included below.

Water
The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to water supply would be less than significant with the implementation of relevant General Plan policies and programs. Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the DWD by way of new connections to existing utility lines within Sellers Avenue. 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) purchased from the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). CVP water is conveyed through the Contra Costa Canal and Los Vaqueros system, and treated at the Randall‐Bold Water Treatment Plant in 171
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Oakley, which is jointly owned by DWD and CCWD.46 According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, water demand for single-family residential uses is projected to increase from 1,744 million gallons (MG) to 2,679 MG between 2025 and 2040. 47 Currently, the DWD has a baseline demand of 177 gallons per capita.
48 The proposed project would allow for future
development of five single-family residences. Based on the City of Oakey’s estimate of

3.41 persons per household, future development of the project site would add approximately 17 residents to the area. Thus, future development of the project site is projected to increase water demand by 3,009 gallons per day (177 gallons per capita x 187 residents), or approximately 1.1 MG per year.

According to the DWD 2020 UWMP, the DWD’s projected water supply exceeds the water demand for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years until at least 2040.49 For example, during the fifth year of drought in 2040, the anticipated supply exceeds the anticipated demand by 1,078 MG per year. Therefore, the DWD would have sufficient water supply to accommodate water demand increases associated with future development of the project site.

Moreover, while future development of the project site would result in increased water consumption at the project site, the increase in demand has been captured in DWD’s demand projections, as future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and DWD’s demand estimates for the City of Oakley are based on buildout of the City’s General Plan. 50 Consequently, the DWD has
anticipated increased water demand due to future development of the project site compared to existing conditions.

Given that future development of the project site would be consistent with the site’s current land use and zoning designations, the type and intensity of growth that would be induced by future development facilitated by the proposed project was generally considered in the General Plan Update and associated water use has been analyzed in the General Plan EIR and the DWD 2020 UWMP. Therefore, future development of the project site would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve future development from existing entitlements and resources.

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

Wastewater is ultimately treated and stored either at the facility in a large 76 million gallon holding pond, or the treated water is conveyed to an outfall pipe in the San Joaquin River.

According to the City’s Focused General Plan Update, the Water Recycling Facility’s average daily flow from 2015 to 2017 was 2.4 MGD. The facility has a treatment capacity of approximately 4.3 MGD.51 The General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to 46 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 47 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 3-2]. June 2021. 48 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 3-5]. June 2021. 49 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 5-5 to 5-6]. June 2021. 50 Diablo Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan [pg. 2-2]. June 2021. 51 Ironhouse Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan [pg. 1-5]. August 2025. 172
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant with the implementation of relevant General Plan policies and programs.

Using standard industry assumptions that (1) domestic water use represents 40 percent of consumption; and (2) wastewater generation represents 90 percent of domestic water use, future development of the project site would generate approximately 1,083 gallons of effluent on a daily basis (3,009 gallons x 0.40 x 0.90). The addition of wastewater from future development facilitated by the proposed project would represent less than one percent of the Water Recycling Facility’s available capacity; therefore, future development of five residences would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities, as the Water Recycling Facility has adequate capacity to serve future development of the project site.

Given that future development of the project site is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation, the type and intensity of growth that would be induced by future development facilitated by the proposed project has been considered in the General Plan and associated wastewater generation has been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, given the available capacity within the wastewater facility, future development of the project site would not result in inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the existing commitments. Thus, future development of the project site would not result in any peculiar effects related to wastewater generation, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

Stormwater
Issues related to stormwater infrastructure are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist. As noted therein, the Stormwater Control Plan that would be required prior to issuance of a building permit, pursuant to Title 6, Chapter 11 of the Municipal Code, would ensure that future development of the project site would not significantly increase stormwater flows into the City’s existing system. The final drainage system design for the project and SWPPP would be subject to review and approval by the City of Oakley City Engineer to confirm that the proposed drainage system for the project is consistent with the City’s Storm Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Therefore, future development of the project site would not result in significant environmental effects as a result of the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.

Electricity and Telecommunications
The General Plan EIR found implementation of all applicable General Plan policies and programs would reduce impacts related to utility service capabilities to be less than significant. According to the General Plan EIR, the City of Oakley is served by PG&E for electricity service and natural gas, and Pacific Bell, which is now AT&T, for telecommunication services. It should be noted that natural gas would not be used for future development of the project site. Future development would be provided electricity by PG&E by way of existing electrical infrastructure in the project vicinity, and existing telecommunication facilities exist within the vicinity of the project site. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would not require major upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.
173
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
Conclusion
The General Plan EIR found that implementation of all applicable General Plan policies and programs would reduce impacts related to utilities and service systems to be less than significant. Based on the above, impacts related to 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, as well as impacts related to sufficient water supplies being available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and the availability of adequate capacity to serve the wastewater demand projected for the proposed project in addition to the City’s existing commitments, were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
d,e. The General Plan EIR concluded that applicable policies and programs included in the General Plan would reduce potential impacts related to solid waste disposal to a lessthan-significant level. 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.52
Due to the substantial amount of available capacity remaining at Potrero Hills Landfill, sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate the project’s future solid waste disposal needs. Additionally, because the site has been anticipated for development by the City General Plan, impacts related to solid waste resulting from development of the site have already been evaluated in the City’s General Plan EIR.

Furthermore, as required by CALGreen Code Section 4.408, future development of the project site would be required to submit a Waste Management Plan to the City detailing on-site sorting of construction debris. Implementation of the Waste Management Plan would ensure that future development of the project site meets established diversion requirements for reused or recycled construction waste.

Therefore, future development of the project site would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, impacts related to solid waste were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review related to such.
52 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. Potrero Hills Landfill (48-AA-0075). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591. Accessed April 2026. 174
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XX. WILDFIRE.

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

Significant
Impact Peculiar
to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in the
General Plan
EIR
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?   
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
  
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
  
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
  
Environmental Setting
The majority of the site consists of a vacant lot with relatively flat topography and scattered trees throughout. An existing structure used for storage of land maintenance equipment is located in the northwestern corner of the project site and an approximately 12-foot-wide gated driveway from Sellers Avenue is located along the southeastern boundary of the project site. The site is generally surrounded by scattered rural residences and undeveloped/agricultural land. Sellers Avenue bounds the site to the east.

State responsibility areas (SRAs) are not located within the City’s Planning Area. In addition, according to the CAL FIRE Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High FHSZ.53
General Plan Policies
Listed below are relevant policies from the City of Oakley General Plan Update related to wildfire that may be applicable to the proposed project:

Policy 4.4.2. Require that new development pay its fair share of costs for new fire protection facilities and services.

Policy 4.4.6. Require the provision of fire fighting equipment access to open space areas in accordance with the Fire Protection Code and to all future development in accordance with Fire Access Standards.

Discussion
a-d. The General Plan EIR concluded that compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations as well as General Plan policies and strategies, would ensure that impacts from wildland hazards would be less than significant. 53 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Accessed April 2026.
175
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
The project site is not located within an SRA or Very High FHSZ. The nearest High or Very High Fire FHSZ is located approximately 3.8-mile to the southwest, and the project site is separated from such areas by existing urban development, which serves as a fire break for the project site. In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC, as adopted by Chapter 7.1.102 of the City’s Municipal Code, including installation of fire sprinkler systems. The project site is not located on a substantial slope, and the project area does not include any existing features that would substantially increase fire risk for future residents. Given that lands located just outside of the immediate site vicinity to the north and east consist of largely developed single-family neighborhoods and the project site is situated adjacent to existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, future development facilitated by the proposed project would not result in substantial fire risks related to installation or maintenance of such infrastructure. Lastly, as discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, and Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, future development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to flooding or landslides.

Based on the above, impacts related to wildfire risks were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the site would not be subject to any peculiar hazards related to wildfire risk.
176
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
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 Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, the potential exists for western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and golden eagle to occur on or adjacent to the project site. However, future development of the project site would be required to comply with ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements and implement applicable AMMs, which would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, while the field survey of the project site did not locate any historical or archaeological resources, the Cultural Resource Study determined that the project site contains a moderate potential for buried pre-historic archaeological sites due to the site’s distance to Marsh Creek. However, future development of the project site would comply with General Plan policies and programs, including Program 6.4.C., related to preservation of archaeological resources and human remains if such resources are discovered within the project site during future construction activities, which would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

Considering the above, future development of the project site would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts associated with such resources have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not change from what was identified in the General Plan EIR, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
b. Future development of the project site, in conjunction with other development within the City of Oakley, could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, future development facilitated by the proposed project was included in the future development assumptions evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that all potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and programs. Given that future development of 177
Hacienda Estates Project
Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist

July 2026
the project site would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the project site, cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the site have been anticipated by the City and were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Cumulative effects peculiar to the project or project site do not exist. Additionally, future development facilitated by the proposed project does not include cumulative impacts that were not analyzed or discussed in the previous EIR. Furthermore, as discussed throughout this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, all impacts associated with the proposed project were adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed project would not result in any peculiar effects that would require further CEQA review. As such, this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist does not include any substantial new information that shows impacts are more severe than previously discussed, and further analysis is not required.
c. As described in this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, future development of the project site would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, other applicable local, County and State regulations. In addition, as discussed in the Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections of this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist, future development of the project site would not cause substantial effects to human beings, including effects related to exposure to air pollutants, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and excessive noise, beyond the effects previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts have been adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR, and further analysis is not required in this Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist. 178

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING RESULTS
179
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
1 / 78
Hacienda Estates 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

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.2. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.3. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.2.5. Onsite Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.2.6. Offsite Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
180
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
2 / 78

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027)

3.1.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.1.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.1.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.2. Site Preparation (2027)

3.2.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.2.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.2.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.2.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.3. Grading (2027)

3.3.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.3.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.3.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.3.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.4. Building Construction (2027)
181
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
3 / 78

3.4.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.4.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.4.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.4.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.5. Paving (2027)

3.5.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.5.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.5.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.5.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.6. Architectural Coating (2027)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.6.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.6.3. Onsite - Mitigated

3.6.4. Offsite - Mitigated

3.7. Architectural Coating (2028)

3.7.1. Onsite - Unmitigated

3.7.2. Offsite - Unmitigated

3.7.3. Onsite - Mitigated
182
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
4 / 78

3.7.4. Offsite - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
183
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
5 / 78

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 184
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
6 / 78

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 185
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
7 / 78

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 186
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
8 / 78

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
187
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
9 / 78

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications

8.3. Land Use

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases

8.5. Operations

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths

8.5.3. Energy Usage
188
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
10 / 78

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Hacienda Estates
Construction Start Date 1/1/2027
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency City of Oakley
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60000
Precipitation (days) 20.6000
Location 37.97279124954225, -121.67877008180513
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 2022.1.1.43

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
Single Family
Housing

5.00000 Dwelling Unit 5.40000 9,750.00 191,000 — 14.0000 — 189
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
11 / 78

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. 2.06301 1.83682 10.2440 14.1511 0.02522 0.35582 0.02162 0.37744 0.32737 0.00523 0.33260 — 2,562.79 2,562.79 0.10377 0.02330 0.09245 2,572.43 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.68787 3.10174 28.0167 28.8235 0.04891 1.17173 19.8017 20.9734 1.07799 10.1364 11.2143 — 5,433.63 5,433.63 0.21837 0.04926 0.01644 5,453.71 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.53117 1.34116 8.72049 10.9823 0.01923 0.32298 1.31109 1.63407 0.29716 0.65629 0.95345 — 2,005.43 2,005.43 0.08115 0.01912 0.05644 2,013.21 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.27944 0.24476 1.59149 2.00427 0.00351 0.05894 0.23927 0.29822 0.05423 0.11977 0.17400 — 332.021 332.021 0.01344 0.00317 0.00934 333.310

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year

2.2.1. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 190
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
12 / 78
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.06301 1.83682 10.2440 14.1511 0.02522 0.35582 0.02162 0.37744 0.32737 0.00523 0.33260 — 2,562.79 2,562.79 0.10377 0.02330 0.09245 2,572.43 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.68787 3.10174 28.0167 28.8235 0.04891 1.17173 19.8017 20.9734 1.07799 10.1364 11.2143 — 5,433.63 5,433.63 0.21837 0.04926 0.01644 5,453.71 2028 0.81752 0.79486 0.80904 1.12886 0.00173 0.01536 0.00298 0.01833 0.01413 0.00070 0.01483 — 136.260 136.260 0.00549 0.00121 0.00024 136.758 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.53117 1.34116 8.72049 10.9823 0.01923 0.32298 1.31109 1.63407 0.29716 0.65629 0.95345 — 2,005.43 2,005.43 0.08115 0.01912 0.05644 2,013.21 2028 0.01120 0.01089 0.01108 0.01546 0.00002 0.00021 0.00004 0.00025 0.00019 0.00001 0.00020 — 1.86699 1.86699 0.00008 0.00002 0.00006 1.87382 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.27944 0.24476 1.59149 2.00427 0.00351 0.05894 0.23927 0.29822 0.05423 0.11977 0.17400 — 332.021 332.021 0.01344 0.00317 0.00934 333.310 2028 0.00204 0.00199 0.00202 0.00282 <

0.000005

0.00004 0.00001 0.00005 0.00004 <

0.000005

0.00004 — 0.30910 0.30910 0.00001 <

0.000005

0.00001 0.31023

2.2.2. Onsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.05445 1.82977 10.2221 14.0633 0.02512 0.35562 0.00000 0.35562 0.32717 0.00000 0.32717 — 2,530.59 2,530.59 0.10265 0.02053 0.00000 2,539.27 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.63178 3.05170 27.9724 28.2794 0.04891 1.17173 19.6570 20.8287 1.07799 10.1024 11.1804 — 5,297.82 5,297.82 0.21490 0.04298 0.00000 5,316.00 2028 0.81639 0.79385 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 0.00000 0.01536 0.01413 0.00000 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 0.00000 133.975 191
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
13 / 78
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
2027 1.51857 1.33066 8.69473 10.8661 0.01914 0.32280 1.27838 1.60119 0.29698 0.64848 0.94546 — 1,964.14 1,964.14 0.07967 0.01593 0.00000 1,970.88 2028 0.01118 0.01087 0.01107 0.01532 0.00002 0.00021 0.00000 0.00021 0.00019 0.00000 0.00019 — 1.82900 1.82900 0.00007 0.00001 0.00000 1.83528 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.27714 0.24285 1.58679 1.98307 0.00349 0.05891 0.23330 0.29222 0.05420 0.11835 0.17255 — 325.185 325.185 0.01319 0.00264 0.00000 326.301 2028 0.00204 0.00198 0.00202 0.00280 <

0.000005

0.00004 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00004 — 0.30281 0.30281 0.00001 <

0.000005

0.00000 0.30385

2.2.3. Offsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.00856 0.00705 0.02189 0.08777 0.00010 0.00020 0.02162 0.02182 0.00020 0.00523 0.00542 — 32.2039 32.2039 0.00112 0.00277 0.09245 33.1509 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.05794 0.05004 0.17100 0.54414 0.00069 0.00132 0.15181 0.15313 0.00132 0.03668 0.03800 — 219.330 219.330 0.01058 0.02146 0.01644 226.007 2028 0.00113 0.00101 0.00090 0.01052 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.74345 2.74345 0.00007 0.00012 0.00024 2.78262 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.01260 0.01050 0.02575 0.11618 0.00009 0.00018 0.03271 0.03289 0.00018 0.00781 0.00799 — 41.2891 41.2891 0.00148 0.00319 0.05644 42.3319 2028 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00014 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.03799 0.03799 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00006 0.03854
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.00230 0.00192 0.00470 0.02120 0.00002 0.00003 0.00597 0.00600 0.00003 0.00142 0.00146 — 6.83587 6.83587 0.00024 0.00053 0.00934 7.00853 2028 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00003 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
— 0.00629 0.00629 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00001 0.00638
192
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
14 / 78

2.2.4. Total Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Includes both onsite and offsite emissions.

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.06301 1.83682 10.2440 14.1511 0.02522 0.35582 0.02162 0.37744 0.32737 0.00523 0.33260 — 2,562.79 2,562.79 0.10377 0.02330 0.09245 2,572.43 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.68787 3.10174 28.0167 28.8235 0.04891 1.17173 19.8017 20.9734 1.07799 10.1364 11.2143 — 5,433.63 5,433.63 0.21837 0.04926 0.01644 5,453.71 2028 0.81752 0.79486 0.80904 1.12886 0.00173 0.01536 0.00298 0.01833 0.01413 0.00070 0.01483 — 136.260 136.260 0.00549 0.00121 0.00024 136.758 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.53117 1.34116 8.72049 10.9823 0.01923 0.32298 1.31109 1.63407 0.29716 0.65629 0.95345 — 2,005.43 2,005.43 0.08115 0.01912 0.05644 2,013.21 2028 0.01120 0.01089 0.01108 0.01546 0.00002 0.00021 0.00004 0.00025 0.00019 0.00001 0.00020 — 1.86699 1.86699 0.00008 0.00002 0.00006 1.87382 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.27944 0.24476 1.59149 2.00427 0.00351 0.05894 0.23927 0.29822 0.05423 0.11977 0.17400 — 332.021 332.021 0.01344 0.00317 0.00934 333.310 2028 0.00204 0.00199 0.00202 0.00282 <

0.000005

0.00004 0.00001 0.00005 0.00004 <

0.000005

0.00004 — 0.30910 0.30910 0.00001 <

0.000005

0.00001 0.31023

2.2.5. Onsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.05445 1.82977 10.2221 14.0633 0.02512 0.35562 0.00000 0.35562 0.32717 0.00000 0.32717 — 2,530.59 2,530.59 0.10265 0.02053 0.00000 2,539.27 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
193
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
15 / 78
2027 3.63178 3.05170 27.9724 28.2794 0.04891 1.17173 19.6570 20.8287 1.07799 10.1024 11.1804 — 5,297.82 5,297.82 0.21490 0.04298 0.00000 5,316.00 2028 0.81639 0.79385 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 0.00000 0.01536 0.01413 0.00000 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 0.00000 133.975 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 1.51857 1.33066 8.69473 10.8661 0.01914 0.32280 1.27838 1.60119 0.29698 0.64848 0.94546 — 1,964.14 1,964.14 0.07967 0.01593 0.00000 1,970.88 2028 0.01118 0.01087 0.01107 0.01532 0.00002 0.00021 0.00000 0.00021 0.00019 0.00000 0.00019 — 1.82900 1.82900 0.00007 0.00001 0.00000 1.83528 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.27714 0.24285 1.58679 1.98307 0.00349 0.05891 0.23330 0.29222 0.05420 0.11835 0.17255 — 325.185 325.185 0.01319 0.00264 0.00000 326.301 2028 0.00204 0.00198 0.00202 0.00280 <

0.000005

0.00004 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00004 — 0.30281 0.30281 0.00001 <

0.000005

0.00000 0.30385

2.2.6. Offsite 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.00856 0.00705 0.02189 0.08777 0.00010 0.00020 0.02162 0.02182 0.00020 0.00523 0.00542 — 32.2039 32.2039 0.00112 0.00277 0.09245 33.1509 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.05794 0.05004 0.17100 0.54414 0.00069 0.00132 0.15181 0.15313 0.00132 0.03668 0.03800 — 219.330 219.330 0.01058 0.02146 0.01644 226.007 2028 0.00113 0.00101 0.00090 0.01052 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.74345 2.74345 0.00007 0.00012 0.00024 2.78262 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.01260 0.01050 0.02575 0.11618 0.00009 0.00018 0.03271 0.03289 0.00018 0.00781 0.00799 — 41.2891 41.2891 0.00148 0.00319 0.05644 42.3319 2028 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00014 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.03799 0.03799 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00006 0.03854
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.00230 0.00192 0.00470 0.02120 0.00002 0.00003 0.00597 0.00600 0.00003 0.00142 0.00146 — 6.83587 6.83587 0.00024 0.00053 0.00934 7.00853 194
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
16 / 78
2028 < 0.00003 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 — 0.00629 0.00629 0.00001 0.00638

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005

2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.45607 0.44060 0.13193 1.75642 0.00375 0.00249 0.35196 0.35445 0.00231 0.08925 0.09156 2.15554 432.180 434.335 0.23842 0.01595 1.18762 446.236 Mit. 0.45607 0.44060 0.13193 1.75642 0.00375 0.00249 0.35196 0.35445 0.00231 0.08925 0.09156 2.15554 414.898 417.053 0.23562 0.01561 1.18762 428.783 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4% 4% 1% — — 4%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42133 0.40655 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 2.15554 405.398 407.554 0.24019 0.01740 0.09881 418.843 Mit. 0.42133 0.40655 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 2.15554 388.116 390.272 0.23739 0.01706 0.09881 401.390 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4% 4% 1% — — 4%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.42855 0.41378 0.14069 1.41155 0.00344 0.00237 0.33955 0.34192 0.00221 0.08612 0.08833 2.15554 370.885 373.041 0.23422 0.01587 0.54171 384.167 Mit. 0.42855 0.41378 0.14069 1.41155 0.00344 0.00237 0.33955 0.34192 0.00221 0.08612 0.08833 2.15554 353.603 355.758 0.23142 0.01553 0.54171 366.714 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 5% 5% 1% — — 5%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07821 0.07551 0.02568 0.25761 0.00063 0.00043 0.06197 0.06240 0.00040 0.01572 0.01612 0.35687 61.4043 61.7611 0.03878 0.00263 0.08969 63.6032 Mit. 0.07821 0.07551 0.02568 0.25761 0.00063 0.00043 0.06197 0.06240 0.00040 0.01572 0.01612 0.35687 58.5430 58.8999 0.03831 0.00257 0.08969 60.7136 195
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
17 / 78
% — — — — — — — — — — — — 5% 5% 1% 2% — 5%
Reduced

2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 Area 0.27238 0.27099 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 0.00000 31.4511 31.4511 0.00500 0.00061 — 31.7572 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.45607 0.44060 0.13193 1.75642 0.00375 0.00249 0.35196 0.35445 0.00231 0.08925 0.09156 2.15554 432.180 434.335 0.23842 0.01595 1.18762 446.236 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Area 0.24627 0.24627 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.42133 0.40655 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 2.15554 405.398 407.554 0.24019 0.01740 0.09881 418.843 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.16940 0.15532 0.13937 1.27141 0.00343 0.00231 0.33955 0.34186 0.00216 0.08612 0.08828 — 349.458 349.458 0.01445 0.01460 0.47188 354.643 Area 0.25914 0.25846 0.00132 0.14014 0.00001 0.00007 — 0.00007 0.00005 — 0.00005 0.00000 1.13083 1.13083 0.00014 0.00002 — 1.13963 196
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
18 / 78
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.42855 0.41378 0.14069 1.41155 0.00344 0.00237 0.33955 0.34192 0.00221 0.08612 0.08833 2.15554 370.885 373.041 0.23422 0.01587 0.54171 384.167 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152 Area 0.04729 0.04717 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00000 0.18722 0.18722 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.18868
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 2.86128 2.86128 0.00046 0.00006 — 2.88957 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156 Total 0.07821 0.07551 0.02568 0.25761 0.00063 0.00043 0.06197 0.06240 0.00040 0.01572 0.01612 0.35687 61.4043 61.7611 0.03878 0.00263 0.08969 63.6032

2.5. 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 0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 Area 0.27238 0.27099 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 0.00000 31.4511 31.4511 0.00500 0.00061 — 31.7572 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.45607 0.44060 0.13193 1.75642 0.00375 0.00249 0.35196 0.35445 0.00231 0.08925 0.09156 2.15554 414.898 417.053 0.23562 0.01561 1.18762 428.783 197
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
19 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Area 0.24627 0.24627 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.42133 0.40655 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 2.15554 388.116 390.272 0.23739 0.01706 0.09881 401.390 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.16940 0.15532 0.13937 1.27141 0.00343 0.00231 0.33955 0.34186 0.00216 0.08612 0.08828 — 349.458 349.458 0.01445 0.01460 0.47188 354.643 Area 0.25914 0.25846 0.00132 0.14014 0.00001 0.00007 — 0.00007 0.00005 — 0.00005 0.00000 1.13083 1.13083 0.00014 0.00002 — 1.13963 Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983 Total 0.42855 0.41378 0.14069 1.41155 0.00344 0.00237 0.33955 0.34192 0.00221 0.08612 0.08833 2.15554 353.603 355.758 0.23142 0.01553 0.54171 366.714 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152 Area 0.04729 0.04717 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00000 0.18722 0.18722 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.18868
Energy 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156 Total 0.07821 0.07551 0.02568 0.25761 0.00063 0.00043 0.06197 0.06240 0.00040 0.01572 0.01612 0.35687 58.5430 58.8999 0.03831 0.00257 0.08969 60.7136 198
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
20 / 78

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2027)

3.1.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.63907 2.21478 19.9005 18.6307 0.03253 0.79594 — 0.79594 0.73226 — 0.73226 — 3,426.90 3,426.90 0.13901 0.02780 — 3,438.66 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.13219 0.13219 — 0.02002 0.02002 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14461 0.12136 1.09044 1.02086 0.00178 0.04361 — 0.04361 0.04012 — 0.04012 — 187.775 187.775 0.00762 0.00152 — 188.420 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00724 0.00724 — 0.00110 0.00110 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
199
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
21 / 78
Off-Roa 0.02639 0.02215 0.19901 0.18631 0.00033 0.00796 — 0.00796 0.00732 — 0.00732 — 31.0883 31.0883 0.00126 0.00025 — 31.1950 d
Equipm
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00132 0.00132 — 0.00020 0.00020 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.1.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00985 0.00218 0.13300 0.06280 0.00069 0.00132 0.02781 0.02913 0.00132 0.00761 0.00894 — 102.922 102.922 0.00761 0.01627 0.00521 107.966 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00262 0.00233 0.00203 0.02485 0.00000 0.00000 0.00670 0.00670 0.00000 0.00157 0.00157 — 6.44774 6.44774 0.00014 0.00027 0.01025 6.54099 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00054 0.00012 0.00718 0.00343 0.00004 0.00007 0.00151 0.00158 0.00007 0.00041 0.00049 — 5.63822 5.63822 0.00042 0.00089 0.00475 5.91906 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00048 0.00043 0.00037 0.00454 0.00000 0.00000 0.00122 0.00122 0.00000 0.00029 0.00029 — 1.06750 1.06750 0.00002 0.00004 0.00170 1.08293 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00010 0.00002 0.00131 0.00063 0.00001 0.00001 0.00028 0.00029 0.00001 0.00008 0.00009 — 0.93347 0.93347 0.00007 0.00015 0.00079 0.97997

3.1.3. Onsite - Mitigated
200
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
22 / 78
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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.63907 2.21478 19.9005 18.6307 0.03253 0.79594 — 0.79594 0.73226 — 0.73226 — 3,426.90 3,426.90 0.13901 0.02780 — 3,438.66 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.13219 0.13219 — 0.02002 0.02002 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14461 0.12136 1.09044 1.02086 0.00178 0.04361 — 0.04361 0.04012 — 0.04012 — 187.775 187.775 0.00762 0.00152 — 188.420 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00724 0.00724 — 0.00110 0.00110 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02639 0.02215 0.19901 0.18631 0.00033 0.00796 — 0.00796 0.00732 — 0.00732 — 31.0883 31.0883 0.00126 0.00025 — 31.1950 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00132 0.00132 — 0.00020 0.00020 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 201
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
23 / 78

3.1.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00985 0.00218 0.13300 0.06280 0.00069 0.00132 0.02781 0.02913 0.00132 0.00761 0.00894 — 102.922 102.922 0.00761 0.01627 0.00521 107.966 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00262 0.00233 0.00203 0.02485 0.00000 0.00000 0.00670 0.00670 0.00000 0.00157 0.00157 — 6.44774 6.44774 0.00014 0.00027 0.01025 6.54099 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00054 0.00012 0.00718 0.00343 0.00004 0.00007 0.00151 0.00158 0.00007 0.00041 0.00049 — 5.63822 5.63822 0.00042 0.00089 0.00475 5.91906 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00048 0.00043 0.00037 0.00454 0.00000 0.00000 0.00122 0.00122 0.00000 0.00029 0.00029 — 1.06750 1.06750 0.00002 0.00004 0.00170 1.08293 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00010 0.00002 0.00131 0.00063 0.00001 0.00001 0.00028 0.00029 0.00001 0.00008 0.00009 — 0.93347 0.93347 0.00007 0.00015 0.00079 0.97997

3.2. Site Preparation (2027)

3.2.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
202
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
24 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.63178 3.05170 27.9724 28.2794 0.04891 1.17173 — 1.17173 1.07799 — 1.07799 — 5,297.82 5,297.82 0.21490 0.04298 — 5,316.00 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.6570 19.6570 — 10.1024 10.1024 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19900 0.16722 1.53273 1.54955 0.00268 0.06420 — 0.06420 0.05907 — 0.05907 — 290.291 290.291 0.01178 0.00236 — 291.288 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.07710 1.07710 — 0.55356 0.55356 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03632 0.03052 0.27972 0.28279 0.00049 0.01172 — 0.01172 0.01078 — 0.01078 — 48.0611 48.0611 0.00195 0.00039 — 48.2260 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19657 0.19657 — 0.10102 0.10102 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 203
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
25 / 78

3.2.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05610 0.05004 0.04433 0.54414 0.00000 0.00000 0.14466 0.14466 0.00000 0.03391 0.03391 — 135.810 135.810 0.00347 0.00606 0.01310 137.715 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00305 0.00272 0.00237 0.02899 0.00000 0.00000 0.00782 0.00782 0.00000 0.00183 0.00183 — 7.52236 7.52236 0.00017 0.00031 0.01195 7.63115 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00056 0.00050 0.00043 0.00529 0.00000 0.00000 0.00143 0.00143 0.00000 0.00033 0.00033 — 1.24541 1.24541 0.00003 0.00005 0.00198 1.26342 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
204
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
26 / 78
Off-Roa
Equipment

3.63178 3.05170 27.9724 28.2794 0.04891 1.17173 — 1.17173 1.07799 — 1.07799 — 5,297.82 5,297.82 0.21490 0.04298 — 5,316.00 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.6570 19.6570 — 10.1024 10.1024 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.19900 0.16722 1.53273 1.54955 0.00268 0.06420 — 0.06420 0.05907 — 0.05907 — 290.291 290.291 0.01178 0.00236 — 291.288 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.07710 1.07710 — 0.55356 0.55356 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03632 0.03052 0.27972 0.28279 0.00049 0.01172 — 0.01172 0.01078 — 0.01078 — 48.0611 48.0611 0.00195 0.00039 — 48.2260 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19657 0.19657 — 0.10102 0.10102 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.2.4. Offsite - 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 205
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
27 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05610 0.05004 0.04433 0.54414 0.00000 0.00000 0.14466 0.14466 0.00000 0.03391 0.03391 — 135.810 135.810 0.00347 0.00606 0.01310 137.715 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00305 0.00272 0.00237 0.02899 0.00000 0.00000 0.00782 0.00782 0.00000 0.00183 0.00183 — 7.52236 7.52236 0.00017 0.00031 0.01195 7.63115 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00056 0.00050 0.00043 0.00529 0.00000 0.00000 0.00143 0.00143 0.00000 0.00033 0.00033 — 1.24541 1.24541 0.00003 0.00005 0.00198 1.26342 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3. Grading (2027)

3.3.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
206
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
28 / 78
Off-Roa 1.88795 1.58640 14.2321 17.2743 0.02733 0.59767 — 0.59767 0.54986 — 0.54986 — 2,960.07 2,960.07 0.12007 0.02401 — 2,970.23 d
Equipm
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.08259 7.08259 — 3.42474 3.42474 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05172 0.04346 0.38992 0.47327 0.00075 0.01637 — 0.01637 0.01506 — 0.01506 — 81.0979 81.0979 0.00329 0.00066 — 81.3762 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19404 0.19404 — 0.09383 0.09383 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00944 0.00793 0.07116 0.08637 0.00014 0.00299 — 0.00299 0.00275 — 0.00275 — 13.4267 13.4267 0.00054 0.00011 — 13.4728 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03541 0.03541 — 0.01712 0.01712 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.2. Offsite - 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 207
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
29 / 78
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00131 0.00117 0.00101 0.01243 0.00000 0.00000 0.00335 0.00335 0.00000 0.00079 0.00079 — 3.22387 3.22387 0.00007 0.00013 0.00512 3.27049 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00024 0.00021 0.00019 0.00227 0.00000 0.00000 0.00061 0.00061 0.00000 0.00014 0.00014 — 0.53375 0.53375 0.00001 0.00002 0.00085 0.54147 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.88795 1.58640 14.2321 17.2743 0.02733 0.59767 — 0.59767 0.54986 — 0.54986 — 2,960.07 2,960.07 0.12007 0.02401 — 2,970.23 208
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
30 / 78
Dust — — — — — — 7.08259 7.08259 — 3.42474 3.42474 — — — — — — — From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05172 0.04346 0.38992 0.47327 0.00075 0.01637 — 0.01637 0.01506 — 0.01506 — 81.0979 81.0979 0.00329 0.00066 — 81.3762 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.19404 0.19404 — 0.09383 0.09383 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00944 0.00793 0.07116 0.08637 0.00014 0.00299 — 0.00299 0.00275 — 0.00275 — 13.4267 13.4267 0.00054 0.00011 — 13.4728 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03541 0.03541 — 0.01712 0.01712 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.3.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
209
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
31 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00131 0.00117 0.00101 0.01243 0.00000 0.00000 0.00335 0.00335 0.00000 0.00079 0.00079 — 3.22387 3.22387 0.00007 0.00013 0.00512 3.27049 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00024 0.00021 0.00019 0.00227 0.00000 0.00000 0.00061 0.00061 0.00000 0.00014 0.00014 — 0.53375 0.53375 0.00001 0.00002 0.00085 0.54147 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4. Building Construction (2027)

3.4.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 210
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
32 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.67439 0.56432 5.14572 7.08929 0.01282 0.18442 — 0.18442 0.16967 — 0.16967 — 1,313.47 1,313.47 0.05328 0.01066 — 1,317.97 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12308 0.10299 0.93909 1.29379 0.00234 0.03366 — 0.03366 0.03096 — 0.03096 — 217.459 217.459 0.00882 0.00176 — 218.206 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00609 0.00550 0.00382 0.06614 0.00000 0.00000 0.01488 0.01488 0.00000 0.00349 0.00349 — 15.2662 15.2662 0.00028 0.00058 0.05192 15.4989 Vendor 0.00125 0.00045 0.01731 0.00840 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00396 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 13.8845 13.8845 0.00078 0.00207 0.03015 14.5523 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 211
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
33 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00577 0.00515 0.00456 0.05597 0.00000 0.00000 0.01488 0.01488 0.00000 0.00349 0.00349 — 13.9690 13.9690 0.00036 0.00062 0.00135 14.1649 Vendor 0.00122 0.00041 0.01822 0.00865 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00396 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 13.8933 13.8933 0.00078 0.00207 0.00078 14.5316 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00314 0.00280 0.00243 0.02982 0.00000 0.00000 0.00805 0.00805 0.00000 0.00188 0.00188 — 7.73728 7.73728 0.00017 0.00032 0.01230 7.84918 Vendor 0.00067 0.00023 0.00975 0.00467 0.00005 0.00011 0.00204 0.00215 0.00011 0.00056 0.00067 — 7.60994 7.60994 0.00043 0.00114 0.00713 7.96643 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00057 0.00051 0.00044 0.00544 0.00000 0.00000 0.00147 0.00147 0.00000 0.00034 0.00034 — 1.28100 1.28100 0.00003 0.00005 0.00204 1.29952 Vendor 0.00012 0.00004 0.00178 0.00085 0.00001 0.00002 0.00037 0.00039 0.00002 0.00010 0.00012 — 1.25991 1.25991 0.00007 0.00019 0.00118 1.31893 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
212
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
34 / 78
Off-Roa 1.23076 1.02988 9.39093 12.9379 0.02340 0.33657 — 0.33657 0.30965 — 0.30965 — 2,397.08 2,397.08 0.09724 0.01945 — 2,405.30 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.67439 0.56432 5.14572 7.08929 0.01282 0.18442 — 0.18442 0.16967 — 0.16967 — 1,313.47 1,313.47 0.05328 0.01066 — 1,317.97 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12308 0.10299 0.93909 1.29379 0.00234 0.03366 — 0.03366 0.03096 — 0.03096 — 217.459 217.459 0.00882 0.00176 — 218.206 Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.4.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00609 0.00550 0.00382 0.06614 0.00000 0.00000 0.01488 0.01488 0.00000 0.00349 0.00349 — 15.2662 15.2662 0.00028 0.00058 0.05192 15.4989 Vendor 0.00125 0.00045 0.01731 0.00840 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00396 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 13.8845 13.8845 0.00078 0.00207 0.03015 14.5523 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00577 0.00515 0.00456 0.05597 0.00000 0.00000 0.01488 0.01488 0.00000 0.00349 0.00349 — 13.9690 13.9690 0.00036 0.00062 0.00135 14.1649 213
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
35 / 78
Vendor 0.00122 0.00041 0.01822 0.00865 0.00010 0.00020 0.00377 0.00396 0.00020 0.00104 0.00124 — 13.8933 13.8933 0.00078 0.00207 0.00078 14.5316 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00314 0.00280 0.00243 0.02982 0.00000 0.00000 0.00805 0.00805 0.00000 0.00188 0.00188 — 7.73728 7.73728 0.00017 0.00032 0.01230 7.84918 Vendor 0.00067 0.00023 0.00975 0.00467 0.00005 0.00011 0.00204 0.00215 0.00011 0.00056 0.00067 — 7.60994 7.60994 0.00043 0.00114 0.00713 7.96643 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00057 0.00051 0.00044 0.00544 0.00000 0.00000 0.00147 0.00147 0.00000 0.00034 0.00034 — 1.28100 1.28100 0.00003 0.00005 0.00204 1.29952 Vendor 0.00012 0.00004 0.00178 0.00085 0.00001 0.00002 0.00037 0.00039 0.00002 0.00010 0.00012 — 1.25991 1.25991 0.00007 0.00019 0.00118 1.31893 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5. Paving (2027)

3.5.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.87761 0.73744 6.94439 9.95313 0.01395 0.29813 — 0.29813 0.27428 — 0.27428 — 1,511.11 1,511.11 0.06130 0.01226 — 1,516.29 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
214
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
36 / 78
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01202 0.01010 0.09513 0.13634 0.00019 0.00408 — 0.00408 0.00376 — 0.00376 — 20.7001 20.7001 0.00084 0.00017 — 20.7711 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00219 0.00184 0.01736 0.02488 0.00003 0.00075 — 0.00075 0.00069 — 0.00069 — 3.42714 3.42714 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.43890 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00065 0.00058 0.00051 0.00621 0.00000 0.00000 0.00168 0.00168 0.00000 0.00039 0.00039 — 1.61193 1.61193 0.00004 0.00007 0.00256 1.63525 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
215
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
37 / 78
Worker 0.00012 0.00011 0.00009 0.00113 0.00000 0.00000 0.00031 0.00031 0.00000 0.00007 0.00007 — 0.26687 0.26687 0.00001 0.00001 0.00042 0.27073 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.87761 0.73744 6.94439 9.95313 0.01395 0.29813 — 0.29813 0.27428 — 0.27428 — 1,511.11 1,511.11 0.06130 0.01226 — 1,516.29 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01202 0.01010 0.09513 0.13634 0.00019 0.00408 — 0.00408 0.00376 — 0.00376 — 20.7001 20.7001 0.00084 0.00017 — 20.7711 Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00219 0.00184 0.01736 0.02488 0.00003 0.00075 — 0.00075 0.00069 — 0.00069 — 3.42714 3.42714 0.00014 0.00003 — 3.43890 216
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
38 / 78
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.5.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04808 0.04289 0.03800 0.46641 0.00000 0.00000 0.12400 0.12400 0.00000 0.02906 0.02906 — 116.408 116.408 0.00298 0.00519 0.01123 118.041 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00065 0.00058 0.00051 0.00621 0.00000 0.00000 0.00168 0.00168 0.00000 0.00039 0.00039 — 1.61193 1.61193 0.00004 0.00007 0.00256 1.63525 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00012 0.00011 0.00009 0.00113 0.00000 0.00000 0.00031 0.00031 0.00000 0.00007 0.00007 — 0.26687 0.26687 0.00001 0.00001 0.00042 0.27073 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6. Architectural Coating (2027)

3.6.1. Onsite - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 217
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
39 / 78
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07274 0.06011 0.44079 0.59683 0.00092 0.01010 — 0.01010 0.00929 — 0.00929 — 70.8062 70.8062 0.00287 0.00057 — 71.0492 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.36409 0.36409 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
218
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
40 / 78
Onsite 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01327 0.01097 0.08044 0.10892 0.00017 0.00184 — 0.00184 0.00170 — 0.00170 — 11.7228 11.7228 0.00048 0.00010 — 11.7630 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06645 0.06645 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00122 0.00110 0.00076 0.01323 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 3.05323 3.05323 0.00006 0.00012 0.01038 3.09977 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00115 0.00103 0.00091 0.01119 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.79380 2.79380 0.00007 0.00012 0.00027 2.83299 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00061 0.00054 0.00047 0.00577 0.00000 0.00000 0.00156 0.00156 0.00000 0.00036 0.00036 — 1.49772 1.49772 0.00003 0.00006 0.00238 1.51938 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 219
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
41 / 78
Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00011 0.00010 0.00009 0.00105 0.00000 0.00000 0.00028 0.00028 0.00000 0.00007 0.00007 — 0.24796 0.24796 0.00001 0.00001 0.00039 0.25155 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13715 0.11335 0.83116 1.12539 0.00173 0.01905 — 0.01905 0.01752 — 0.01752 — 133.513 133.513 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.971 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 220
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
42 / 78
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07274 0.06011 0.44079 0.59683 0.00092 0.01010 — 0.01010 0.00929 — 0.00929 — 70.8062 70.8062 0.00287 0.00057 — 71.0492 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.36409 0.36409 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01327 0.01097 0.08044 0.10892 0.00017 0.00184 — 0.00184 0.00170 — 0.00170 — 11.7228 11.7228 0.00048 0.00010 — 11.7630 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06645 0.06645 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.6.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00122 0.00110 0.00076 0.01323 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 3.05323 3.05323 0.00006 0.00012 0.01038 3.09977 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 221
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
43 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.00115 0.00103 0.00091 0.01119 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.79380 2.79380 0.00007 0.00012 0.00027 2.83299 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00061 0.00054 0.00047 0.00577 0.00000 0.00000 0.00156 0.00156 0.00000 0.00036 0.00036 — 1.49772 1.49772 0.00003 0.00006 0.00238 1.51938 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00011 0.00010 0.00009 0.00105 0.00000 0.00000 0.00028 0.00028 0.00000 0.00007 0.00007 — 0.24796 0.24796 0.00001 0.00001 0.00039 0.25155 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7. Architectural Coating (2028)

3.7.1. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12985 0.10731 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 — 0.01536 0.01413 — 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.975 222
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
44 / 78
Architect 0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00178 0.00147 0.01107 0.01532 0.00002 0.00021 — 0.00021 0.00019 — 0.00019 — 1.82900 1.82900 0.00007 0.00001 — 1.83528 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00940 0.00940 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00032 0.00027 0.00202 0.00280 <

0.000005

0.00004 — 0.00004 0.00004 — 0.00004 — 0.30281 0.30281 0.00001 <

0.000005
— 0.30385
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00172 0.00172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7.2. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
223
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
45 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.00113 0.00101 0.00090 0.01052 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.74345 2.74345 0.00007 0.00012 0.00024 2.78262 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00014 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.03799 0.03799 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00006 0.03854
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00003 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
— 0.00629 0.00629 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00001 0.00638
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7.3. Onsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12985 0.10731 0.80814 1.11833 0.00173 0.01536 — 0.01536 0.01413 — 0.01413 — 133.517 133.517 0.00542 0.00108 — 133.975 224
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
46 / 78
Architect 0.68654 0.68654 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00178 0.00147 0.01107 0.01532 0.00002 0.00021 — 0.00021 0.00019 — 0.00019 — 1.82900 1.82900 0.00007 0.00001 — 1.83528 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00940 0.00940 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00032 0.00027 0.00202 0.00280 <

0.000005

0.00004 — 0.00004 0.00004 — 0.00004 — 0.30281 0.30281 0.00001 <

0.000005
— 0.30385
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00172 0.00172 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

3.7.4. Offsite - 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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
225
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
47 / 78
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.00113 0.00101 0.00090 0.01052 0.00000 0.00000 0.00298 0.00298 0.00000 0.00070 0.00070 — 2.74345 2.74345 0.00007 0.00012 0.00024 2.78262 Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00014 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 0.00004 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.03799 0.03799 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00006 0.03854
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00003 0.00000 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
— 0.00629 0.00629 <

0.000005
<

0.000005

0.00001 0.00638
Vendor 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hauling 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 226
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
48 / 78
Total 0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Total 0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152 Total 0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 Total 0.18369 0.16961 0.12924 1.47226 0.00374 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 380.432 380.432 0.01379 0.01409 1.11779 386.095 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Total 0.17506 0.16028 0.15196 1.34108 0.00348 0.00236 0.35196 0.35432 0.00221 0.08925 0.09146 — 354.409 354.409 0.01560 0.01555 0.02898 359.463 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
227
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
49 / 78
Single 0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152 Family
Housing
Total 0.03092 0.02835 0.02543 0.23203 0.00063 0.00042 0.06197 0.06239 0.00039 0.01572 0.01611 — 57.8568 57.8568 0.00239 0.00242 0.07813 58.7152

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 17.2823 17.2823 0.00280 0.00034 — 17.4532 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.86128 2.86128 0.00046 0.00006 — 2.88957 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.86128 2.86128 0.00046 0.00006 — 2.88957

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) 228
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
50 / 78
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — <

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
<

0.000005
— <

0.000005

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 229
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
51 / 78
Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000

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

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
230
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
52 / 78
Single 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 Family
Housing
Total 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Consum
er
Product
s

0.20865 0.20865 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03762 0.03762 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.02611 0.02472 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 — 0.75844 0.75844 0.00003 0.00001 — 0.76110 Total 0.27238 0.27099 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 0.00000 31.4511 31.4511 0.00500 0.00061 — 31.7572 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Consum
er
Product
s

0.20865 0.20865 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
231
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
53 / 78
Architect
Coatings

0.03762 0.03762 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.24627 0.24627 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.12530 0.12530 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.12654
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03808 0.03808 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00687 0.00687 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.00235 0.00223 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 — 0.06192 0.06192 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
— 0.06214
Total 0.04729 0.04717 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00000 0.18722 0.18722 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.18868

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 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Consum
er
Product
s

0.20865 0.20865 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03762 0.03762 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
232
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
54 / 78
Landsca
Equipment

0.02611 0.02472 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 — 0.75844 0.75844 0.00003 0.00001 — 0.76110 Total 0.27238 0.27099 0.00269 0.28417 0.00001 0.00013 — 0.00013 0.00010 — 0.00010 0.00000 31.4511 31.4511 0.00500 0.00061 — 31.7572 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Consum
er
Product
s

0.20865 0.20865 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.03762 0.03762 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.24627 0.24627 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 30.6926 30.6926 0.00497 0.00060 — 30.9961 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 — 0.00000 0.00000 0.12530 0.12530 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.12654
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03808 0.03808 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.00687 0.00687 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.00235 0.00223 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 — 0.06192 0.06192 <

0.000005
<

0.000005
— 0.06214
Total 0.04729 0.04717 0.00024 0.02557 <

0.000005

0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00001 — 0.00001 0.00000 0.18722 0.18722 0.00002 <

0.000005
— 0.18868

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
233
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
55 / 78

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 234
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
56 / 78
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34868 3.01411 3.36279 0.03624 0.00091 — 4.53957 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05773 0.49902 0.55675 0.00600 0.00015 — 0.75158

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 235
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
57 / 78
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661

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
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.80686 0.00000 1.80686 0.18059 0.00000 — 6.32158 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29915 0.00000 0.29915 0.02990 0.00000 — 1.04661

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
236
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
58 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156

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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
237
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
59 / 78
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06983 0.06983
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01156 0.01156

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 238 Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
60 / 78
Equipm
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. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8.2. Mitigated
239
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
61 / 78
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
240
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
62 / 78

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
241
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
63 / 78

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
242
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
64 / 78
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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
243
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
65 / 78
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
244
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
66 / 78
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data
245
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
67 / 78

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2027 1/29/2027 5.00000 20.0000 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/1/2027 2/26/2027 5.00000 20.0000 — Grading Grading 3/1/2027 3/12/2027 5.00000 10.00000 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/22/2027 12/24/2027 5.00000 200.000 — Paving Paving 3/15/2027 3/19/2027 5.00000 5.00000 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/5/2027 1/7/2028 5.00000 200.000 —

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 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 246
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
68 / 78
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000 hoes
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 33.0000 0.73000
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 148.000 0.41000 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 367.000 0.40000 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.000000 7.00000 367.000 0.29000 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00000 8.00000 82.0000 0.20000 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 14.0000 0.74000 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00000 7.00000 84.0000 0.37000
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.000000 8.00000 46.0000 0.45000 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 81.0000 0.42000 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 89.0000 0.36000 247
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
69 / 78
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00000 8.00000 36.0000 0.38000 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.000000 6.00000 37.0000 0.48000

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.50000 20.0000 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 1.80000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 0.53450 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 0.36000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 248
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
70 / 78
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.50000 20.0000 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 17.5000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 1.80000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 0.53450 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving Worker 15.0000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 0.36000 11.7000 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40000 HHDT,MHDT
249
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
71 / 78
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00000 20.0000 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 19,743.8 6,581.25 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 2,568.00 0.00000
Site Preparation — — 30.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Grading — — 10.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Paving 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.05510

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Single Family Housing 0.05510 0%
250
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
72 / 78

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400
2028 0.00000 203.983 0.03300 0.00400

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

47.2000 47.7000 42.7500 17,022.0 493.357 498.583 446.844 177,922

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

47.2000 47.7000 42.7500 17,022.0 493.357 498.583 446.844 177,922

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 5 5
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
251
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
73 / 78
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
19,743.8 6,581.25 0.00000 0.00000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000

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 30,924.3 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 0.00000

5.11.2. Mitigated
252
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
74 / 78
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 0.00451 203.983 0.0330 0.0040 0.00000

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 181,962 854,297

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 181,962 854,297

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 3.35262 0.00000

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 3.35262 0.00000

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
253
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
75 / 78
Land Use 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 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use 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 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000

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
254
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
76 / 78

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

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
255
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
77 / 78

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Lot acreage adjusted to represent overall acreage of the project site.

Construction: Construction Phases 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. Phase timing is based on the project-specific construction schedule provided by the applicant.

Operations: Hearths According to the project applicant, all 5 units would have electric fireplaces.

Operations: Energy Use The project applicant has confirmed that the proposed project would not use natural gas during operations.

8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 1.62338 5.40000
Landscape Area sq. ft 58,564.0 191,000

8.4. Construction

8.4.1. Construction Phases
Phase Type Phase Name Model Parameter Default Value New Value Site Preparation Site Preparation Start Date 1/30/2027 2/1/2027 Site Preparation Site Preparation End Date 2/13/2027 2/26/2027 Site Preparation Site Preparation Work Days per Phase 10.00000 20.0000 Grading Grading Start Date 2/14/2027 3/1/2027
Grading Grading End Date 3/14/2027 3/12/2027
Grading Grading Work Days per Phase 20.0000 10.00000
Building Construction Building Construction Start Date 3/15/2027 3/22/2027 Building Construction Building Construction End Date 1/31/2028 12/24/2027 Building Construction Building Construction Work Days per Phase 230.000 200.000 256
Hacienda Estates Custom Report, 5/6/2026
78 / 78
Paving Paving Start Date 2/1/2028 3/15/2027
Paving Paving End Date 2/29/2028 3/19/2027
Paving Paving Work Days per Phase 20.0000 5.00000
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Start Date 3/1/2028 4/5/2027 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating End Date 3/29/2028 1/7/2028 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating Work Days per Phase 20.0000 200.000

8.5. Operations

8.5.2. Area Sources

8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 1 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 5
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 4 0

8.5.3. Energy Usage
Land Use Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Natural Gas kBTU/yr 231,110 0.00000 Single Family Housing Natural Gas (Subject to Title 24) kBTU/yr 217,644 0.00000 Single Family Housing Natural Gas (Not Subject to Title 24) kBTU/yr 13,465.9 0.00000 257

APPENDIX B

APPLICATION FORM AND PLANNING SURVEY REPORT
258

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Application Form and Planning Survey Report
To Comply With and Receive Permit Coverage Under
The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan
and Natural Community Conservation Plan
Please complete this application to apply for take authorization under the state and federal East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP incidental take permits. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”) or local jurisdiction (City of Brentwood, City of Clayton, City of Oakley, City of Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County) may request more information in order to deem the application complete.

I. PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME: 5321 Sellers Avenue Subdivision Project
PROJECT TYPE: Residential Commercial Transportation Utility Other PROJECT DESCRIPTION (BRIEF): The project applicant plans to construct the 5321 Sellers Avenue Subdivision Project (project) and divide the existing parcel into three parcels, in which five single-family homes, five Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and an access roadway will be developed. The future site use will be for single-family residential purposes. The project site consists of an existing vacant parcel approximately 5.40 acres in size on which approximately 44,000 gross square feet of new impervious area would be constructed. Existing roadway materials on the site will be reused to reduce the amount of new impervious area. Remaining undeveloped areas of the site will be used for landscaped plantings. Soil disturbance and vegetation removal will occur with a maximum excavation depth of approximately 48 inches, depending on foundation and utility depth requirements. Construction is anticipated to start in March 2026 and finish in September 2027 and would involve three phases. Site preparation would occur first and include rough and fine grading, followed by trenching and utility infrastructure installations. Once site preparation is complete, the access roadway and building structures will be constructed. The final phase would involve completing the interior and exterior of the buildings.

PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 5321 Sellers Ave, Oakley, CA
PARCEL/PROJECT SIZE (ACRES): 5.40 acres
PROJECT APN(S): 033-130-055
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: FINAL PSR DATE: (City/County/Conservancy use) LEAD PLANNER:

JURISDICTION: City of Brentwood City of Clayton City of Oakley City of Pittsburg Contra Costa County Participating Special Entity*

DEVELOPMENT FEE ZONE: Zone I Zone II Zone III Zone IV
See figure 9-1 of the HCP/NCCP at www.cocohcp.org for a generalized development fee zone map. Detailed development fee zone maps by jurisdiction are available from the jurisdiction.

PROJECT APPLICANT INFORMATION
APPLICANT’S NAME: Mark A. de la O
AUTHORIZED AGENT’S NAME AND TITLE: Mark A. de la O, Civil Engineer PHONE NO.: (925) 698-1909 APPLICANT’S E-MAIL: [email protected] MAILING ADDRESS: 296 Heron Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565
BIOLOGIST INFORMATION1
1 A USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist (project-specific) is required to conduct the surveys. Please submit biologist(s) approval request to the Conservancy. *Participating Special Entities are organizations not subject to the authority of a local jurisdiction. Such organizations may include school districts, irrigation districts, transportation agencies, local park districts, geological hazard abatement districts, or other utilities or special districts that own land or provide public services.
259

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
BIOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM: Dudek
CONTACT NAME AND TITLE: Emily Scricca, Biologist
PHONE NO.: (510) 601-2512 CONTACT’S E-MAIL: [email protected] MAILING ADDRESS: 1904 Franklin Street, Suite 600, Oakland, CA 260

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
II. PROJECT DETAILS
Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Project Description
Attach as Attachment A: Project Description. Provide a detailed written description that concisely and completely describes the project and location. Include the following information:
• All activities proposed for the site or project, including roads utilized, construction staging areas, and the installation of underground facilities, to ensure the entire project is covered by the HCP/NCCP permit
• Proposed construction dates, including details on construction phases, if applicable • Reference a City/County application number for the project, if applicable • General Best Management Practices, if applicable
• If the project will have temporary impacts, please provide a restoration plan describing how the site will be restored to pre-project conditions, including revegetation seed mixes or plantings and timing 2) Project Vicinity Map
Provide a project vicinity map. Attach as Figure 1 in Attachment B: Figures. 3) Project Site Plans
Provide any project site plans for the project. Attach as Figure 2 in Attachment B: Figures. 4) CEQA Document
Indicate the status of CEQA documents prepared for the project. Provide additional comments below table if necessary.

Type of Document Status Date Completed
Initial Study
Notice of Preparation
Draft EIR
Final EIR
Notice of Categorical Exemption
Notice of Statutory Exemption
Other (describe) Per the City of Oakley, CEQA does not apply to the project.

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS
Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Field-Verified Land Cover Map2
Attach a field-verified land cover map in Attachment B: Figures and label as Figure 3. The map should contain all land cover types present on-site overlaid on aerial/satellite imagery. Map colors for the land cover types should conform to the HCP/NCCP (see Figure 3-3: Landcover in the Inventory Area for land cover type legend).
2) Photographs of the Project Site
Attach representative photos of the project site in Attachment B: Figures and label as Figure 4. Please provide captions for each photo.
2 For PSEs and city or county public works projects, please also identify permanent and temporary impact areas by overlaying crosshatching (permanent impacts) and hatching (temporary impacts) on the land cover map.
261

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
3) Land Cover Types and Impacts and Supplemental Tables • For all terrestrial land cover types please provide calculations to the nearest hundredth of an acre (0.01).

For aquatic land cover types please provide calculations to the nearest thousandth of an acre (0.001). • Permanent Impacts are broadly defined in the ECCC HCP/NCCP to include all areas removed from an undeveloped or habitat-providing state and includes land in the same parcel or project that is not developed, graded, physically altered, or directly affected in any way but is isolated from natural areas by the covered activity. Unless such undeveloped land is dedicated to the Preserve System or is a deed-restricted creek setback, the development mitigation fee will apply (if proposed, would require Conservancy approval). • Temporary Impacts are broadly defined in the ECCC HCP/NCCP as any impact on vegetation or habitat that does not result in permanent habitat removal (i.e. vegetation can eventually recover). • If wetland (riparian woodland/scrub, wetland, or aquatic) land cover types are present on the parcel but will not be impacted please discuss in the following section 4) Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters. Wetland impact fees will only be charged if wetland features are impacted. However, development fees will apply to the entire parcel. • Stream land cover type is considered a linear feature where impacts are calculated based on length impacted. The acreage within a stream, below Top of Bank (TOB), must be assigned to the adjacent land cover type(s). Insert area of impact to stream below TOB in parentheses after the Land Cover acreage number (e.g., Riparian Woodland/Scrub: 10 (0.036) – where 10 is the total impacted acreage including 0.036 acre, which is the acreage within stream TOB).

Complete following supplemental Stream Feature Detail table to provide information for linear feet. • Total Impacts acreage should be the total parcel acreage (development project) or project footprint acreage (rural infrastructure or utility project).

Table 1: Land Cover Types and Impacts
Land Cover Type Permanent
Impacts
Temporary
Impacts
Stream Setback Preserve System
Dedication
Grassland
Annual Grassland
Alkali Grassland
Ruderal
Shrubland
Chaparral and Scrub
Woodland
Oak Savannah
Oak Woodland
Riparian
Riparian Woodland/Scrub
Wetland
Permanent Wetland
Seasonal Wetland
Alkali Wetland
Aquatic
Aquatic (Reservoir/Open Water)
Slough/Channel
Pond
Stream (in linear feet) - - - -
Irrigated Agriculture
Pasture
Cropland 5.40
Orchard
Vineyard
Other
Nonnative woodland
Wind turbines
Developed (not counted toward Fees)
Urban
Aqueduct
Turf
Landfill
TOTAL IMPACTS 5.40 0 0 0
Proposed for HCP/NCCP
Dedication on the Parcel
(Requires Conservancy Approval)
262

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Identify any uncommon vegetation and uncommon landscape features3:

Supplemental to Table 1: Uncommon Vegetation and Landscape Features No uncommon vegetation or landscape features were documented in the project site.

Please provide details of impacts to stream features:

Stream Name: No stream features were documented in the project site.

Watershed:

Supplemental to Table 1: Stream Feature Detail5
3 These acreages are for Conservancy tracking purposes. Impacts to these uncommon vegetation and landscape features should be accounted for within the land cover types in Table 1 (e.g., x acres of purple needlegrass in this supplemental table should be accounted for within annual grassland in Table 1). 4 Insert amount/number, not acreage. Provide additional information on these features in Attachment A: Project Description. 5 Use more than 1 row as necessary to describe impacts to streams on site. 6 See glossary (Appendix A) for definition of stream type and order. 7 Stream length is measured along stream centerline, based on length of impact to any part of the stream channel, TOB to TOB.

Permanent
Impacts
Temporary
Impacts
Uncommon Grassland Alliances
Purple Needlegrass Grassland
Blue Wildrye Grassland
Creeping Ryegrass Grassland
Wildflower Fields
Squirreltail Grassland
One-sided Bluegrass Grassland
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
Saltgrass Grassland
Alkali Sacaton Bunchgrass Grassland
Other
Uncommon Landscape Features
Rock Outcrops
Caves
Springs and seeps
Scalds
Sand Deposits
Mines4
Buildings (bat roosts)3
Potential nest sites (trees or cliffs)3
Stream Width Stream Type6 Permanent Impacts
(linear feet)7
Temporary Impacts
(linear feet)7
≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

≤ 25 feet wide
> 25 feet wide
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral, 3rd or higher order
Ephemeral, 1st or 2nd order

263

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
4) Summary of Land Cover Types
Please provide a written summary of descriptions for land cover types found on site including characteristic vegetation.

Dudek biologist, Emily Scricca, conducted a planning-level survey of the 5321 Sellers Avenue Subdivision project site on March 19, 2025 from 10:00 am to 12:30 pm. The entire site was surveyed on foot and adjacent properties were surveyed from the project site or public right-of-way, as access allowed. Weather conditions during the survey were cloudy with dense low fog, temperatures ranged from 50°F to 54°F with wind speeds of 3 to 5 miles per hour.

One ECCC HCP/NCCP land cover type was documented within the project site: cropland, and is further described below.

Cropland
The HCP/NCCP classifies cropland as one of four irrigated agriculture land cover types. Per the HCP/NCCP, cropland areas are those tilled and cultivated for agricultural crops such as corn, summer squash, pumpkin, and wheat.

Cropland also includes hay production in both dryland settings and irrigated areas. Some fallow fields that are adjacent to active cropland were mapped as cropland by the HCP/NCCP. Some cropland may be considered ruderal if it had been left fallow for several growing seasons or if it appeared to be in the path of incipient development.

Cropland is the most common of the agricultural land cover types in the low-lying areas of the HCP/NCCP inventory area.

Cropland is the primary land cover within the project site and covers all 5.40 acres of the project site (Figure 3).

Based on a review of historical aerial imagery made available by Google Earth Pro (2025), the project site has been subject to routine agricultural activities, such as disking and mowing, for last 20 years, at a minimum. At the time of the planning survey, it was observed that the site consisted of loose soils with an even grade and overgrown vegetation. Agricultural activities such as mowing or discing had likely not yet occurred during the growing season due to the overgrowth of vegetation observed during the site visit. Evident and identifiable vegetation within the site consisted of mostly non-native and disturbance-adapted species, including black mustard (Brassica nigra*), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum*), blessed milkthistle (Silybum marianum*), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium*), and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliate). A few cultivated black walnut (Juglans hindsii) were observed along the southern boundary of the project site. There were several clusters of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows throughout the project site. At the time of the planning survey, the site was not being actively used for crop production. *Indicates the species is not native to California
5) Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters
If wetlands and waters are present on the project site, project proponents must conduct a delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters are defined on pages 1-18 and 1-19 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP as the following land cover types: permanent wetland, seasonal wetland, alkali wetland, aquatic, pond, slough/channel, and stream. It should be noted that these features differ for federal and state jurisdictions. If you have identified any of these land cover types in Table 1, complete the section below. a) Attach the wetland delineation report as Attachment E: Wetland Delineation. If a wetland delineation has not been completed, please explain below in section 4c. b) Please check the following permits the project may require. Please submit copies of these permits to the Conservancy prior to the start of construction:

CWA Section 404 Permit8 CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Waste Discharge Requirements Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement 8 The USACE Sacramento District issued a Regional General Permit 1 (RGP) related to ECCC HCP/NCCP covered activities. The RGP is designed to streamline wetland permitting in the entire ECCC HCP/NCCP Plan Area by coordinating the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the Plan with the Corps’ wetland permitting requirement. Applicants seeking authorization under this RGP shall notify the Corps in accordance with RGP general condition number 18 (Notification). 264

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
c) Provide any additional information on impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waters below, including status of the permit(s):

No aquatic or wetland features were identified during the planning survey. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with no depressions or channels. No standing water, wetland or aquatic vegetation was documented during the planning survey.
265

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
6) Species-Specific Planning Survey Requirements
Based on the land cover types found on-site and identified in Table 1, check the applicable boxes in Table 2a.

Table 2a. Species –Specific Planning Survey Requirements Land Cover Type
in Project Area Required Survey Species Habitat Element in Project Area Planning Survey Requirement9 Info in HCP Grasslands,
oak savannah,
agriculture, or
ruderal
San Joaquin kit fox
The project site is not
within modeled range of
species and no suitable
burrows/dens present.

Assumed if within modeled range
of species
If within modeled range of species,
identify and map potential breeding or
denning habitat within the project site
and a 250-ft radius around the project
footprint.
pp. 6-37
to 6-38
Western burrowing
owl
Assumed Identify and map potential breeding
habitat within the project site and a
500-ft radius around the project
footprint. Please note the HCP
requires buffers for occupied burrows.

Surveys may need to encompass an
area larger than the project footprint.
pp. 6-39
to 6-41
Aquatic
(ponds,
wetlands,
streams, sloughs,
channels, and
marshes)
Giant garter snake
No suitable habitat
elements present.

Aquatic habitat accessible from
the San Joaquin River
Identify and map potential habitat. pp. 6-43
to 6-45
California tiger
Salamander
No suitable habitat
elements present.

Ponds and wetlands
Vernal pools
Reservoirs
Small lakes
Identify and map potential breeding
habitat. Document habitat quality and
features. Provide the Conservancy
with photo-documentation and report.
pp. 6-45
California
red-legged frog
No suitable habitat
elements present.

Slow-moving streams, ponds and
wetlands
Identify and map potential breeding
habitat. Document habitat quality and
features. Provide the Conservancy
with photo-documentation and report.
p. 6-46
Covered shrimp
No suitable habitat
elements present.

Seasonal wetlands
Vernal pools
Sandstone rock outcrops
Sandstone depressions
Identify and map potential habitat.

Please note the HCP requires a 50 foot
non-disturbance buffer from seasonal
wetlands that may be occupied by
covered shrimp. Surveys may need to
encompass an area larger than the
project footprint.
pp. 6-46
to 6-48
Any Townsend’s big-eared
bat
No suitable habitat
elements present.

Rock formations with caves
Mines
Abandoned buildings outside
urban area
Map and document potential breeding
or roosting habitat.
pp. 6-36
to 6-37
Swainson’s hawk Potential nest sites within 1,000
feet of project
Inspect large trees for presence of nest
sites. Document and map.
pp. 6-41
to 6-43
Golden Eagle Potential nest sites with ½ mile of
project
Inspect large trees for presence of nest
sites. Document and map.
pp. 6-38
to 6-39
Surveys for all covered species must be conducted by a qualified biologist (USFWS/CDFW project-specific approved). Please submit biologist approval request to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy.

Surveys for all covered species must be conducted according to the respective USFWS or CDFW survey protocols, as identified in Chapter

6.4.3 in the HCP/NCCP.
7) Planning Survey Species Habitat Maps
Provide Planning Survey Species Habitat Maps as required in Table 2a, attach as Figure 5 in Attachment B:

Figures.
9 The planning survey requirements in this table are not comprehensive. Please refer to Chapter 6.4.3 in the ECCC HCP/NCCP for more detail. 266

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
267

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
8) Results of Species Specific Surveys
Provide a written summary describing the results of the planning surveys. Please discuss the location, quantity, and quality of suitable habitat for specified covered wildlife species on the project site.

A planning-level survey was conducted by Dudek biologist, Emily Scricca, for the 5321 Sellers Avenue Subdivision project site on March 19, 2025 from 10:00 am to 12:30 pm. The entire site was surveyed on foot and adjacent properties were surveyed from the project site or public right-of-way, as access allowed.

The project site was determined to lack suitable habitat and/or occur outside the modeled range for the following HCP/NCCP covered species: San Joaquin kit fox, giant garter snake, California tiger salamander, California redlegged frog, covered shrimp and Townsend’s big-eared bat. No aquatic habitat, vernal pools, rock formations, caves or mines were documented within the project site. As a result of the lack of suitable habitat and/or the project’s location outside the modeled range, these species are not discussed further.

Western burrowing owl
As described in the HCP/NCCP, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will identify potential burrowing owl breeding habitat during the planning surveys. The HCP/NCCP considers annual grassland, alkali grassland, ruderal, seasonal wetland, and cultivated agriculture land covers as suitable for this species (Table 3-9). Cropland land cover within the project site is considered suitable habitat to support this species, and numerous California ground squirrel burrows are present on the western and northern sides of the project site. Several burrows of suitable diameter to support burrowing owl were observed, however, no individuals, or their sign, were observed during the planning survey. All potential habitat for this species within 500 feet of the project site is mapped and included in Figure 5a.

There are several California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences of this species near project site, with the closest being 0.30 miles southeast of the project site (Occ. No. 1871; CDFW 2025). However, this record is from 1993. An additional seven CNDDB occurrences of this species were documented within one mile of the project site (Occ. Nos. 765, 881, 1156, 1158, 1874, 1875, and 1876; CDFW 2025). Many of these occurrence areas are now densely developed and the species is likely extirpated or were reportedly passively relocated. No additional occurrences within the proximity of the project site have been recorded since 2006.

Swainson’s hawk
As described in the HCP/NCCP, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will inspect all large trees with binoculars to document whether Swainson’s hawk (SWHA) nests occur on site during the planning surveys. The HCP/NCCP considers annual grassland, alkali grassland, ruderal, seasonal wetland, and cultivated agriculture land covers as suitable foraging habitat for SWHA, and riparian woodland as suitable breeding habitat for this species (Table 3-9).

Patches of suitable nesting trees were documented adjacent to, and within 1,000 feet of the project site, primarily north and south of the project site (Figure 5b). No active nests or nest starts were documented; however, Swainson’s hawk nests are often inconspicuously constructed in trees and may not be visible from the project site or public roads. These nests are often best located by tracking Swainson’s hawk individuals flying to and from nesting locations during protocol-level surveys. Trees situated within densely developed subdivisions or commercial areas are not considered suitable for SWHA, which typically prefer to nest away from human disturbance. The project site and surrounding agricultural lands provide suitable foraging habitat for SWHA, and suitable prey species such as California ground squirrel and gophers are present. Suitable nesting habitat for this species within 1,000 feet of the project site is mapped in Figure 5b.

There are documented CNDDB occurrences of Swainson’s hawk near the project site, with the closest being an occurrence from 2006 approximately 1.05 miles west of the project site (Occ. No. 1714; CDFW 2025). Several other occurrences have been documented within 2 miles of the project site (Occ. Nos. 1312, 1600, 1712, and 1713; CDFW 2025), however many of these records are from 2006 or earlier.

Golden eagle
As described in the HCP/NCCP, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist will identify potential active nests of golden eagle during the planning surveys. The HCP/NCCP considers numerous land cover types as suitable foraging habitat 268

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
for this species, which forage over a wide variety of open habitats. The HCP/NCCP lists oak savannah and rock outcrop as suitable nesting land covers for this species (Table 3-9).

The project area and surrounding 0.5 mile were surveyed for suitable nesting habitat and nests of this species. No stick nests in trees were observed that were large enough to support this species, and no rock outcrops or oak savannah land cover types were present in the vicinity. Large mature trees within 0.5 mile of the project site were documented and may have potential to support nesting of this species. However, development surrounding the project site may preclude golden eagle from nesting within the vicinity of the site. Potential nesting habitat within

0.5 mile of the project is mapped in Figure 5c. Trees were considered potentially suitable if they were large, mature and were not completely surrounded by urban areas. The preferred nesting habitat of cliffs, rock outcrops, oak savannah and large isolated trees is not present within 0.5 mile of the project site and much of the area is likely too developed with too much human activity to support nesting by this species. There is a low potential for this species to forage within the project site. Suitable prey species are present, but the surrounding development and active disturbance is likely to deter golden eagle from foraging on the site.

There are no CNDDB occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the project site. Most occurrences of this species in Contra Costa County occur on the slopes and foothills of Mount Diablo and are not documented in the low elevation areas like the project site.
9) Covered and No-Take Plants
Please check the applicable boxes in Table 2b based on the land cover types found in the project area. If suitable land cover types are present on site, surveys must be conducted using approved CDFW/USFWS methods during the appropriate season for identification of covered and no-take species (see page 6-9 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP). Reference populations of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant species is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. In order to complete all the necessary covered and no-take plant surveys, spring, summer, and fall surveys may be required.
269

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
Table 2b. Covered and No-Take Plant Species
Plant Species
Covered
(C) or NoTake (N)Associated Land
Cover Type
Typical Habitat or Physical Conditions, if
Known
Typical Blooming
Period
Suitable Land
Cover Type
Present
Adobe navarretia
(Navarretia nigelliformis ssp.
radians)
a
C Annual Grassland Generally found on clay barrens in
Annual Grassland b
Apr–Jun Yes
No
Alkali milkvetch
(Astragalus tener ssp. tener)
N Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Annual grassland
Seasonal wetland
Generally found in vernally moist habitat
in soils with a slight to strongly elevated
pH
Mar–Jun Yes
No
Big tarplant
(Blepharizonia plumosa)
C Annual grassland Elevation below 1500 feet d most often on Altamont Series or Complex soils
Jul–Oct Yes
No
Brewer’s dwarf flax
(Hesperolinon breweri)
C Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Generally, restricted to grassland areas
within a 500+ buffer from oak woodland
and/or chaparral/scrub d
May–Jul Yes
No
Brittlescale
(Atriplex depressa)
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Restricted to soils of the Pescadero or
Solano soil series; generally found in
southeastern region of plan area d
May–Oct Yes
No
Caper-fruited tropidocarpum
(Tropidocarpum capparideum)
N Alkali grassland Mar–Apr Yes
No
Contra Costa goldfields
(Lasthenia conjugens)
N Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Annual grassland
Seasonal wetland
Generally found in vernal pools Mar–Jun Yes
No
Diablo Helianthella
(Helianthella castanea)
C Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Elevations generally above 650 feet d Mar–Jun Yes
No
Diamond-petaled poppy
(Eschscholzia rhombipetala)
N Annual grassland Mar–Apr Yes
No
Large-flowered fiddleneck
(Amsinckia grandiflora)
N Annual grassland Generally on clay soil Apr–May Yes
No
Mount Diablo buckwheat
(Eriogonum truncatum)
N Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Ecotone of grassland and chaparral/scrub Apr–Sep Yes
No
Mount Diablo fairy-lantern
(Calochortus pulchellus)
C Annual grassland
Chaparral and scrub
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Elevations generally between 650 and
2,600d
Apr–Jun Yes
No
Mount Diablo Manzanita
(Arctostaphylos auriculata)
C Chaparral and scrub Elevations generally between 700 and 1,860 feet; restricted to the eastern and
northern flanks of Mt. Diablo d and the
vicinity of Black Diamond Mines
Jan–Mar Yes
No
Recurved larkspur
(Delphinium recurvatum)
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Mar–Jun Yes
No
Round-leaved filaree
(California macrophylla)
c
C Annual grassland Mar–May Yes
No
San Joaquin spearscale
(Extriplex joaquiniana)
e
C Alkali grassland
Alkali wetland
Apr–Oct Yes
No
Showy madia
(Madia radiata)
C Annual grassland
Oak savanna
Oak woodland
Primarily occupies open grassland or
grassland on edge of oak woodland
Mar–May Yes
No
a The species Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. nigelliformis is no longer considered to occur within Contra Costa County based on specimen annotations at the UC and Jepson Herbaria at the University of California Berkeley as well as the opinions of experts in the genus. This taxon is now recognized as Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians. Any subspecies of Navarretia nigelliformis encountered as a part of botanical surveys in support of a PSR should be considered as covered under this HCP/NCCP. b Habitat for the Navarretia nigelliformis subspecies that occurs within the inventory are is inaccurately described in the HCP/NCCP as vernal pools. The entity within the Inventory generally occupies clay barrens within Annual Grassland habitat, which is an upland habitat type. c From California Native Plant Society. 2007. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-07d). Sacramento, CA. Species may be identifiable outside of the typical blooming period; a professional botanist shall determine if a covered or no take plant occurs on the project site. Reference population of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. d See Species Profiles in Appendix D of the Final HCP/NCCP. Reference populations of covered and no-take plants should be visited, where possible, prior to conducting surveys to confirm that the plant species is visible and detectable at the time surveys are conducted. e In the recent update to the Jepson eflora (JFP 2013) Atriplex joaquinana has been circumscribed and segregated into a new genus called Extriplex based on the work of Elizabeth Zacharias and Bruce Baldwin (2010). The etymology of the genus Extriplex means, “beyond or outside Atriplex”. 270

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
10) Results of Covered and No-Take Plant Species
Provide a written summary describing the results of the planning surveys conducted as required in Table 2b.

Describe the methods used to survey the site for all covered and no-take plants, including the dates and times of all surveys conducted (see Tables 3-8 and 6-5 of the ECCC HCP/NCCP for covered and no-take plants), including reference populations visited prior to conducting surveys.

If any covered or no-take plant species were found, include the following information in the results summary:
• Description and number of occurrences and their rough population size. • Description of the “health” of each occurrence, as defined on pages 5-49 and 5-50 of the HCP/NCCP. • A map of all the occurrences.
• Justification of surveying time window, if outside of the plant’s blooming period. • The CNDDB form(s) submitted to CDFW (if this is a new occurrence). • A description of the anticipated impacts that the covered activity will have on the occurrence and how the project will avoid impacts to all covered and no-take plant species. If impacts to covered plant species cannot be avoided and plants will be removed by covered activity, the Conservancy must be notified and has the option to salvage the covered plants. All projects must demonstrate avoidance of all six no-take plants (see table 6-5 of the HCP/NCCP).

None of the covered or no-take plant species were determined to have a potential to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable land cover types. None of the covered and no-take plant species are associated with the cropland land cover type on the project site.
271

Planning Survey Report Form, Revised July 2015
IV. SPECIES-SPECIFIC AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION REQUIREMENTS Please complete and/or provide the following attachments:
1) Species-Specific Avoidance and Minimization for Selected Covered Wildlife Complete the following table and check the applicable box for covered species determined by the planning surveys.

Table 3. Summary of Applicable Preconstruction Surveys, Avoidance and Minimization, and Construction Monitoring Requirements10
Species Preconstruction Survey
Requirements
Avoidance and Minimization
Requirements Construction Monitoring Required Info in HCP San
Joaquin
kit fox
• On project footprint and 250-ft
radius, map all dens (>5 in.
diameter) and determine status
• Provide written survey results
to USFWS within 5 working
days after surveying
• Monitor dens
• Destroy unoccupied dens
• Discourage use of occupied (nonnatal) dens
• Establish exclusion zones ( >50 ft
for potential dens, and >100 ft for
known dens)
• Notify USFWS of occupied natal
dens
pp. 6-37
to 6-38
Western
burrowing
owl
• On project footprint and 500-ft
radius, identify and map all
owls and burrows, and
determine status
• Document use of habitat (e.g.
breeding, foraging)
While no individual owls or
their sign was observed during
the planning-level survey,
numerous suitable ground
squirrel burrows were present
throughout the project site.

Additionally, there are multiple
CNDDB occurrences near the
project site. Therefore,
preconstruction surveys for this
species should be conducted.
• Avoid occupied nests during
breeding season (Feb-Sep)
• Avoid occupied burrows during
nonbreeding season (Sep – Feb)
• Install one-way doors in occupied
burrow (if avoidance not possible)
• Monitor burrows with doors
installed
• Establish buffer zones (250 ft
around nests)
• Establish buffer zones (160 ft
around burrows)
pp. 6-39
to 6-41
Giant
garter
snake
• Delineate aquatic habitat up to
200 ft from water’s edge on
each side
• Document any occurrences
• Limit construction to Oct-May
• Dewater habitat April 15 – Sep 30
prior to construction
• Minimize clearing for construction
• Delineate 200 ft buffer around
potential habitat near construction
• Provide field report on monitoring
efforts
• Stop construction activities if
snake is encountered; allow snake
to passively relocate
• Remove temporary fill or debris
from construction site
• Mandatory training for
construction personnel
pp. 6-43
to 6-45
California
tiger
salamander
• Provide written notification to
USFWS and CDFW regarding
timing of construction and
likelihood of occurrence on site
• Allow agency staff to translocate
species, if requested
• None p. 6-45
California
red-legged
frog
• Provide written notification to
USFWS and CDFW regarding
timing of construction and
likelihood of occurrence on site
• Allow agency staff to translocate
species, if requested
• None p. 6-46
Covered
shrimp
• Establish presence/absence
• Document and evaluate use of
all habitat features (e.g. vernal
pools, rock outcrops)
• Establish buffer near construction
activities
• Prohibit incompatible activities
• Establish buffer around outer edge
of all hydric vegetation associated
with habitat (50 ft or immediate
watershed, whichever is larger)
• Mandatory training for
construction personnel
pp. 6-46
to 6-48
Townsend’s
big-eared
bat
• Establish presence/absence
• Determine if potential sites
were recently occupied (guano)
• Seal hibernacula before Nov
• Seal nursery sites before April
• None pp. 6-36
to 6-37
10 The requirements in this table are not comprehensive; they are detailed in the next section on the following page. 272