Pacifica City Council
December 2, 2025

October 2024
a.i-ii. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the greater San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Several major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth’s crust that extends for at least 700 miles along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Fault Zones.

The Geotechnical Investigation determined that the lack of mapped active fault traces through the site suggest that a low potential for primary rupture due to fault offset on the property. Nonetheless, given the vicinity of the project site to the San Andreas Fault System, the project site could be subject to strong ground shaking due to a major earthquake in one of the above-listed fault zones.

However, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the adopted edition of the CBSC requirements in place at the time of building permit application. Structures built according to the seismic design provisions of current building codes should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Given the project’s adherence to the CBSC requirements, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, or strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. a.iii-iv. The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading c. and subsidence/settlement are discussed in detail below.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction most commonly occurs during earthquake shaking in loose, fine sands and silty sands associated with a high ground water table. Based on liquefaction susceptibility mapping by U.S. Geological Survey, the project site is mapped in an area of moderate susceptibility. In addition, the State of California maps the site within a liquefaction zone (Montara Mountain Quadrangle, 2019).18 However, per the Geotechnical Investigation, loose, fine, and/or silty sands were not identified in the upper 11 feet of on-site soils.

Although some loose sand deposits exist on the site, such deposits are not watersaturated, and are therefore unlikely to be subject to liquefaction.

Although liquefaction is unlikely to have a significant effect on the subject property, a rigid foundation is required to minimize any potential movements. Therefore, without implementation of mitigation, a potentially significant impact could occur related to damages or collapse due to liquefaction.

Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site and the surrounding area are generally level. Therefore, according to the Geotechnical 18 ENGEO, Inc. 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, California Geotechnical Peer Review. March 2, 2020. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Investigation, the hazard due to large-scale seismically-induced land sliding is relatively low.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is associated with terrain near free faces such as excavations, channels, or open bodies of water. Spreading may occur when a weak layer of material, such as a sensitive silt or clay, loses shear strength as a result of ground shaking. Such conditions were not encountered on the proposed building site. Therefore, the hazard due to lateral spreading is considered very low based on the Geotechnical Investigation.

Subsidence/Settlement
Ground subsidence may occur when poorly consolidated soils densify as a result of earthquake shaking. Because the project site is underlain at shallow depths by resistant materials, the hazard due to ground subsidence is considered to be low. According to GeoForensics, based on preliminary civil plans, up to six feet of fill is proposed at the site, which is likely to result in approximately 9.5 inches of total settlement. However, due to the seismicity of the area, the potential exists for subsidence and settlement to occur within the project site.

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in potential hazards or risks related to landslides or lateral spreading. However, the project would be subject to potential adverse effects related to liquefaction and/or subsidence/settlement. Without implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated January 2016, and the Response to Geotechnical Peer Review, dated April 30, 2020, prepared for the proposed project by GeoForensics, Inc. are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.
b. Issues related to erosion and degradation of water quality during construction are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS, under question ‘a’. As noted therein, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. The Geotechnical Investigation included the testing of soil samples to measure moisture content plasticity, and consolidation. Plasticity Index testing performed on a sample of the 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
site near surface materials, which consisted of organic soils, produced a Plasticity Index result of 210. Typically, a plasticity index of greater than about 30 correlates to a highly expansive soil. However, the testing of highly organic soils has a tendency to produce unusual test results. Nonetheless, the project site could still consist of potentially expansive soils. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur related to being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code, thereby creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

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

VII-2. Implement Mitigation Measure VII-1.
e. Sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the City. The construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. f. The City’s General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological or unique geological resources within the City limits. As determined by the NWIC, areas surrounding the project site have been disturbed in the past, and the likelihood of discovering paleontological resources is low. Nonetheless, the potential exists that excavation and construction on the project site could encounter previously unknown paleontological resources. Thus, if discovered during ground disturbing activities, the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature and a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

VII-3. In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities all ground disturbing activities shall immediately halt and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The qualified paleontologist shall provide the City of Pacifica Planning Department with a report detailing the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources for review and approval by City Planning staff prior to recommencing construction.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
µ

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
µ

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

Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (i.e., electricity services), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).

The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. While updated CEQA Guidelines have not yet been released, on April 20, 2022, the BAAQMD Board of Directors held a public meeting and adopted proposed CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans.19 The updated GHG thresholds address more recent climate change legislation, including SB 32, and provide qualitative thresholds related to Buildings and Transportation.

GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project were modeled with CalEEMod using the same assumptions as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS. All modeling outputs are included in the Appendix A to this IS. According to the CalEEMod results, operations of the proposed project would result in total annual GHG emissions of 359 MTCO2e/yr (see Appendix A). Based on the BAAQMD threshold for AB 32 of 1,100 MTCO2e/yr and the adjusted threshold of 660 MTCO2e/yr for SB 32, the proposed project would not be anticipated to exceed either threshold. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed June 2022.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
However, as noted previously, the applicable BAAQMD thresholds of significance for GHG emissions are qualitative, and the foregoing information is provided for disclosure purposes only. According to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, in order to find a less-than-significant GHG impact, projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
x The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development);
x The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;
x The project will achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; and
x The project will achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

The proposed project may not comply with the foregoing design features and, as a result, a potentially significant impact could occur. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project could generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change could be cumulatively considerable and considered potentially significant.

Further analysis of the above impacts will be included in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

µ

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

µ

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

µ

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

µ
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

µ

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

µ

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

µ

Discussion
a. Due to the limited timeline, construction activities associated with the proposed project are not considered a “routine” use. Nonetheless, hazards related to construction activities and construction materials are discussed further under question ‘b’.

Future operations on the project site could involve the use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount that could reasonably be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards related to the proposed construction activities and existing on-site conditions.

Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and the use of other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Existing On-Site Conditions
The project site was previously developed with a single-family residence and a mechanic shop. Although not documented at the project site, activities within the project site may have included the use of fuels, coolants, or other chemicals associated with the mechanic shop. Operations associated with the mechanic shop could result in concentrations of residual chemicals being present in the near surface soil if use or storage of chemicals has occurred.

Upon development of the project, the northern portion of the site would primarily be covered by pavement and other impervious surfaces, as well as by up to six feet of fill, thereby limiting future upset of on-site soils. As a result, exposure to hazardous materials associated with potentially contaminated soils during project operations are not a concern.

Although not anticipated, issues related to contaminated soils could pose a risk to construction workers during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, analysis of on-site soils would be required in order to ensure that any existing soil contaminant concentrations are below the direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels for residential developments, which measures potential hazards to human health.

If hazardous materials/contaminated soils are identified on-site, such soils would be removed from the site and hauled to an appropriate disposal facility. The proposed project would be required to comply with the regulations set forth by 22 CCR Section 66263, Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, which requires transporters of hazardous materials to ensure that releases of hazardous wastes into the environment would not occur, including the discharge of hazardous wastes into soils, drainage systems, and surface and ground water systems. 22 CCR Section 66263.16 requires that each truck, trailer, semitrailer, vacuum tank, cargo tank, or container used for shipping hazardous waste be designed and constructed, and their contents so limited, that under conditions normally incident to transportation, releases of hazardous wastes to the environment would not occur. Hazardous waste containers are required to be free from leaks and all discharge openings are required to be securely closed during operation. In addition, Section 66263.31 requires transporters of hazardous materials to clean up any hazardous waste discharge that occurs during transportation to the extent that hazardous waste discharge no longer presents a hazard to human health or the environment.

Compliance with the aforementioned State regulations would ensure that, should contaminated soils be identified on-site, the removal of such soils would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials.

Conclusion
Based on the above, although evidence of contamination does not exist, past activities on-site associated with the mechanic shop could have resulted in soil contamination within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment and a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

IX-1. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities on the northern portion of the project site, the project applicant shall complete an analysis of on-site soils to determine whether substantial concentrations of soil contaminants are present above the applicable direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminants are not detected above applicable ESLs, then further mitigation is not required. If contaminants are detected above the applicable ESLs, then the soils shall be remediated by off-hauling to a licensed landfill facility. Such remediation activities shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste contractor (Class A) and contractor personnel that have completed 40-hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training, and overseen by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica Planning Department for review and approval.
c. The project site is located approximately 600 feet, or 0.12-mile, northwest of Cabrillo Elementary School. As discussed above, the proposed operations would not include the use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials associated with cleaning supplies or household materials would be regulated, used, and disposed of according to direction. However, as noted above, previous activities within the project site may have included the use of fuels, coolants, or other chemicals associated with the mechanic shop. Residual chemicals have the potential to be present in the near surface soil. Thus, the project site is located within onequarter mile of a school and, as a result, the project could create hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste and a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

IX-2. Implement Mitigation Measure IX-1.
d. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to annually develop an updated Cortese List. The project site is not located on the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, which is a component of the Cortese List.20 In addition, the project site is not located on any of the other components of the Cortese List (i.e., the list of leaking 20 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=570+Crespi+Drive%2C+Pacifica%2C+CA. Accessed June 2021.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
underground storage tank sites from the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker database, the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders [CDO] and Cleanup and Abatement Orders [CAO] from the SWRCB).21 Thus, the project site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to being located on a hazardous materials site. e. The nearest airport relative to the project site, San Francisco International Airport, is located approximately five miles east of the site. In addition, the project site is located approximately nine miles north of Half Moon Bay Airport. Per the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO Plan), the project site does not lie within designated Safety Compatibility Zones or forecasted noise contours for the airport.22 According to the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the site is not located within an Airport Safety Zone for Half Moon Bay Airport, and, thus, would not be significantly affected by the airport.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles consistent with California Fire Code requirements and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. The California Fire Code also requires that all fire service features be installed on the site, including but not limited to fire lanes, before building construction can begin. In addition, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area. As noted in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS, the proposed project would provide adequate sight distance at the proposed access points at Crespi Drive and would generate minimal traffic.

However, according to the North Country Fire Authority (NCFA), the required access of 26 feet would not be met with the proposed site plan. As a result, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

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

IX-3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the 26-foot access road width, or obtain Fire Marshall approval of an Alternative Methods and Materials request by the NCFA to deviate from the 26-foot access road width requirement for the Project. 21 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed December 2022. 22 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. 23 San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS. As noted therein, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.24 The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Pacifica, is surrounded by existing development, and is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area. While the project site is located among a few trees present on the site, some trees and shrubs would be removed entirely, and the remaining would be maintained according to City procedures. In addition, the new development that would be located on Parcel 1 would be consistent with the existing General Plan MUC land use designation; thus, buildout of Parcel 1 with residential and commercial uses and associated wildfire risk has been considered by the City. With respect to Parcel 2, the proposed project would include off-site improvements related to the construction of a parking lot. As discussed further in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS, such paving activities would remove vegetation from Parcel 2, therefore reducing any potential wildfire hazards on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
24 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

µ

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

µ

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; 
 µ

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor offsite; 
 µ

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


 µ

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?

µ

d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

µ

e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?

µ

Discussion
a,e. During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to grading of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures or new landscaping, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres per the General Construction Permit. Because construction activities on the northern portion of the project site and the off-site improvement area would disturb greater than one acre of land, construction activities would be subject to San Mateo County Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. The San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program provides a list of construction BMPs with which all projects involving construction within the County are required to comply.25 Should the project applicant fail to implement best management practices (BMPs), pollutants from construction activities could runoff into local waterways and degrade downstream water quality, particularly during heavy winter rain events.

Following completion of project buildout, the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces and landscaped areas, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. As such, the 25 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Best Management Practices. Available at:
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/stormwater_compliance/default.asp. Accessed January 4, 2019. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
potential for impacts to water quality would be reduced. In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project would include a series of bioswales on the western and eastern boundaries of the site that would treat stormwater from all on-site impervious areas prior to discharge into the vacant land to the south or into the City’s stormwater drainage system.

While implementation of the above would reduce impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, if the project applicant fails to implement appropriate construction BMPs or implement stormwater requirements, the proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially degrade water quality, or result in a conflict with a water quality control plan. As such, a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

X-1. During construction, the contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, which may include but are not necessarily limited to the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook and in the City’s Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges:
x Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas;
x Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be covered or treated with nontoxic soil stabilizers;
x Exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be enclosed or covered;
x The contractor shall ensure that no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where such materials may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water; x The following types of materials shall not be rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water; and x Grass or other vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.

The applicable BMPs shall be included via notation on the project Improvement Plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit.

X-2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall execute and record a Maintenance Agreement addressing future maintenance of the stormwater 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
treatment measures required to comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. The Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Attorney’s Office.

X-3 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall install all required stormwater treatment measures, and demonstrate full compliance with the stormwater treatment plans prepared for the proposed project. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. b. The proposed project would receive water service from the NCCWD. The NCCWD does not currently rely on groundwater wells for water supply.26 As such, groundwater supplies would not be used to serve the proposed project. Given that only the northern portion of the 1.68-acre project site would be developed, the impervious surfaces created by the project would not substantially interfere with infiltration of stormwater into local groundwater. Furthermore, the project would limit hardscape and use pervious pavement treatments, which would allow for natural infiltration of stormwater. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii. All municipalities within San Mateo County (and the County itself) are required to develop surface water control standards for new development projects to comply with Provision C.3 of the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit order No. R2-2015-0049. The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program developed a C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance document for implementing the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit C.3 requirements, known as the C.3 Standards.27 The City of Pacifica has adopted the County C.3 Standards as part of the City’s NPDES General Permit requirements, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more sf of impervious area to contain and treat the design volume of stormwater runoff from the project site. Given that the proposed project would create more than 10,000 sf of impervious area, the project would be considered a C.3-regulated project.

In accordance with storm water control and water quality standards, the proposed impervious surfaces would drain to vegetated areas and then be conveyed to the rear of the property. In addition to vegetated swales, the site design measures include bioretention swales, pervious pavements and vegetated swales. It has been determined that the rear open space has a storage capacity of approximately 23,962.8 cubic feet (to elevation 10.0), which exceeds the required 100-year event storage capacity for the proposed improvement.

A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 17). Per the SWMP, the project site and off-site improvement area would be divided into eight drainage management areas (DMAs). Four of the DMAs would direct runoff to a series of bioswales, one would direct runoff to a bioretention basin, and three would be self-treating areas.
26 North Coast County Water District. 20-Year Long-Term Water Master Plan. February 2016. 27 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. June 2016.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Figure 17
Stormwater Management Plan
000000~
oooooooa
0 0 ;
y
~ .
~~ y i - ~ ·i
i ~~I~ r
! ~ ~ ~ d a -· ~ ! : § 1; ~ r
~ ~ ~ ~ d ; l!l ~ g ~
~ lm~~B~
'
CRESP I DRIVE i
. I
.. . , . r \?t ~:.
~

CRESPI DRIVE
,:,:::::::::!: ::::::::::::::::::::
·. :!: :::::::::::::::::::: . '• ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . ........ . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . -~---~ -........ . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • •• ' : , ••••• ! • t::·::.:::::::::i: :::::::::::::: t:: ::::::::::::!: ::::::::::::::

J:: : ::::::::::!: :::::::::::::· , • • : : : : : : : / 1::: : : : :- :- :- • : : : : : : : : : -1 ••• ,o .. • • • ••
·.·.•:,,•.·:.·.· ·.·.·.
..
. . . . . ~
. . . . . . ........ ,~ ...
.•:•:•~,;··~
: • : • : • : • : • : • : • : ••• •_.:--,-.-;!#'
·.·.·~~
~ ,;.tf.
\
I
I
J·
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Per Section 6-12.207 of the Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Pacifica requires the applicant submit a complete checklist provided by the City to the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the requirements of NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed stormwater system would need to be addressed in a final SWMP to be submitted to the City of Pacifica in accordance with the stormwater management requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. The final design of the proposed drainage system would be reviewed and approved by the City of Pacifica, which would ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with all applicable regional and local standards and requirements with respect to incorporating sufficient permanent stormwater treatment control BMPs.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, 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. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c.iv. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map number 06081C0126F, the project site is located within the Special Flood Hazard Zone AH, which is considered a 100-year flood plain.

The City of Pacifica has established a flood plain elevation of 14.0 feet above mean sea level. Accordingly, all living space within the City must be designed a minimum of one foot above the flood plain elevation (i.e., 15 feet). Per the Boundary and Topographic Survey conducted for the project site, the development area currently has an elevation ranging from 10.69 to 16.55 feet above mean sea level. During the grading process, approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil would be imported to ensure that all proposed structures have a living space no lower than 15 feet above mean sea level.

In addition, as discussed above, all runoff flowing through the storm drains within the site would divert runoff into bioswales proposed on the western and eastern boundaries of the site, or be directed to a bioretention area in the southeast corner of the project site. As a result, runoff would not accumulate and/or flood on-site or off-site.

Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement as a result of an earthquake beneath the sea floor. The California Department of Conservation maintains Tsunami Inundation Maps for most populated areas along the California coastline. The maps are created by combining inundation results for a variety of different seismic source events. As such, the maps represent a worse-case scenario. According to the Tsunami Inundation Map for the Montara Mountain Quadrangle, the project site is located in a Tsunami Inundation Area.28 However, the proposed project would not increase exposure of the project site or neighboring sites to impacts from a tsunami.

Additionally, the built portion of the project site would be constructed above the base flood elevation. The project site and surrounding area do not provide storage for hazardous 28 California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Montara Mountain Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
materials. Furthermore, residential and commercial land uses, such as the proposed project, are not typically associated with the routine use of hazardous materials. As a result, even though the project site is located within a Tsunami Inundation Area, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants and/or hazardous materials due to project inundation.

A seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, whose destructive capacity is not as great as that of tsunamis.

Seiches are known to have occurred during earthquakes, but none have been recorded in the Bay Area. The project site is located approximately 3.2 miles east of the nearest closed body of water, San Andreas Lake, and, thus, would not be expected to be at risk of inundation from seiche.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation caused by flooding, tsunami or seiche, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?

µ

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?

µ

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. Currently, the project site is bordered by existing single-family residential development to the south, the Pacifica Community Center to the west, Ocean View Senior Apartments and commercial businesses to the north, and an elementary school and commercial businesses to the east. The proposed residences and commercial space would be consistent with the scale, type, and intensity of the existing development in the project area. In addition, the project would not isolate an existing land use. Furthermore, the proposed off-site improvements would consist of minor upgrades that are consistent with the development type and scale of the existing Pacifica Community Center. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. City approval of a General Plan Amendment would be required to redesignate Parcel 2from the current General Plan land use designations (Public and Semi-Public, and Park) to MUC, which would be consistent with the existing land use designation of Parcel 1. As such, the proposed General Plan Amendment is intended to guarantee consistency throughout the entire project site. The proposed project would adhere to all requirements set forth in the City of Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.1101, which regulates development in the C-2 zoning area. The applicability of the San Mateo County CMP LOS requirements is addressed in the Transportation section of this IS. Thus, the design and intended use of the proposed structures would conform with the type and intensity of uses anticipated for the site in the General Plan.

The project would include a Rezoning from M-1 to C-2 and a Zoning Text Amendment to allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2. However, the Rezoning and Zoning Text Amendment would not result in any significant environmental impacts on the project site or surrounding area, or conflict with any plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect because the types of uses and building forms allowed would remain consistent with the existing C-2 zoning standards.

Because development of Parcel 1 would be consistent with the City’s MUC land use designation, the type and intensity of the proposed uses has been generally anticipated by the City. In addition, the General Plan promotes the conservation of water and energy resources. Compliance with the City’s water quality standards, as well as implementation of energy reduction strategies, on-site renewable energy production, and water conservation strategies would ensure that the project would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Furthermore, as discussed throughout this IS, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
by the mitigation measures provided herein. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?

µ
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?

µ
Discussion
a,b. The State Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the project site does not contain any identified mineral resources of regional or Statewide significance (Mineral Resource Zone 2).29 The adopted General Plan recognizes the existence of mineral resources at the Rockaway Quarry and Picardo Ranch (now Millwood Ranch) and cites unmined limestone deposits underlying development elsewhere in the City, but does not specifically refer to this site. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources or result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan, and no impact would occur.
29 State of California. Division of Mines and Geology. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production—Consumption Region. Published 1996. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

µ

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
µ

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?

µ

Discussion
a. The following discussion is based on an Environmental Noise Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Saxelby Acoustics (see Appendix C).30 The report analyzed construction noise and traffic noise level increases at the project site in comparison to the City’s exterior and interior noise level standards. It should be noted that, because traffic patterns in the area have decreased, and because the proposed uses and unit counts have not changed, the analysis and conclusions would represent a conservative analysis.

Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest sensitive receptors include the existing single-family residences to the south, Pacifica Community Center to the west, and Ocean View Senior Apartments to the north. Additionally, the Cabrillo Elementary School is located 0.12-mile east of the site.

Existing Noise Environment
Per the Environmental Noise Assessment, the existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on SR 1 and Crespi Drive. To determine the existing noise environment at the site, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous 24-hour recordings of the sound levels at one location and short-term measurements at two locations in the project vicinity (see Figure 18).

Table 5 below provides summary of the noise measurement results. The results of the measurements summarized in Table 5, are presented in terms of average hourly noise levels (Leq). The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period. All noise level values are in decibels (dB). 30 Saxelby Acoustics LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment, 570 Crespi Drive. September 22, 2021. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Figure 18
Noise Measurement Sites
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
570 Crespi Drive
City of Pacifica, California
egen
Noise Measurement • long Term Noise Measurement - Short Term 250ft SOO h 750 h 1000 ft 1250 ft 1500 ft
,rajKtion: Slate,..,._ (C.ibnLI tone JJ / NADl3 / nN1ten ...
_
00te,O,/U/2a>D
ff SAXELBY
<~\ACOUSTICS
Aco u s ti c, • No l ta . Vi br a ti on
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Table 5
Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data
Site Date
Average Measures Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Ldn
Daytime
(7:00AM-10:00PM)
Nighttime
(10:00PM–7:00AM)
Leq L50 Lmax Leq L50 Lmax
LT-1 4/09/20 – 4/10/20 58 54 51 73 51 45 67
ST-1 4/09/20 – 1:05 PM N/A 55 44 93 N/A N/A N/A
ST-2 4/10/20 – 1:21 PM N/A 48 47 58 N/A N/A N/A
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.

City Noise Standards
The City of Pacifica General Plan establishes noise thresholds for sensitive receptors in Tables 9-1 through 9-3. Pursuant to Table 9-1, the normally acceptable noise level for multi-family residential land uses is less than 65 dB Ldn, and the conditionally acceptable standard ranges from 60 to 70 dB Ldn. Table 9-2 of the General Plan establishes that a limit of 45 dB Ldn is the limit for the interior of residential environments. Finally, Table 9-3 sets forth the Leq as 50 dBA between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM (i.e., during the daytime) and 45 dBA from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM (i.e., during the nighttime).

Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) provides guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. Based on the FICON standards, the project would result in a significant impact under the following circumstances:
x Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors are less than 60 dB Ldn, a +5 dB Ldn increase is considered significant;
x Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors range from 60 to 65 dB Ldn, a +3 dB Ldn increase is considered significant; and x Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors are greater than 65 dB Ldn, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase is considered significant.

Construction Noise
During the construction of the proposed project, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would temporarily increase ambient noise levels when in use. 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. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, and trucks, would be used on-site.

As one increases the distance between equipment, or increases separation of areas with simultaneous construction activity, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects of combining separate noise sources. The noise levels from a source decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source.

Based on the analysis included in the Environmental Noise Analysis, the loudest phase of construction would occur during pile driving activities, and would generate an average 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
noise exposure level of 94 dBA Leq at 50 feet. However, as discussed in further detail under question ‘b’ and as required by Mitigation Measure XIII-2, pile driving shall be prohibited during project construction. The next loudest phase would be site preparation and grading activities, which typically make use of compactors, dozers, and pneumatic tools, are anticipated to be the loudest phases of construction, with an average noise exposure of 83 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Saxelby Acoustics modeled the noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors using the SoundPLAN noise model. The results of the construction noise analysis are depicted in Figure 19 without pile driving.

Table 6 shows a summary of the noise prediction results for each phase of project construction as measured from Site LT-1. As shown in Table 6, the proposed project would generate construction noise levels ranging between 31 and 66 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors. Existing ambient noise levels were found to be between 52 and 58 dBA Ldn in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, project construction could result in a maximum increase in noise of up to 9 dBA above existing ambient noise levels. The increase of 9 dBA would not exceed the Caltrans 12 dBA increase criteria.

Additionally, noise associated with construction activities would occur intermittently, and would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays per Section 8-1.08 of the City’s Municipal Code.

The City of Pacifica would ensure that project construction complies with Section 8-1.08 of the Municipal Code as a condition of project approval. Furthermore, the City of Pacifica Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise standards, provided they take place between the specified hours. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur during project construction.

Operational Noise
The primary source of operational noise associated with the proposed project would be vehicle traffic on the project site and on the local roadway network.

To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels were calculated at sensitive receptors for Baseline, Baseline Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108).

Traffic noise levels were predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers, or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance. Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer,31 and truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations.

Table 7 and Table 8 summarize traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the project area under the aforementioned scenarios. 31 RKH Civil and Transportation, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California. November 8, 2021.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Figure 19
Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Without Pile Driving Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
570 Crespi Drive
City of Pacifica, California
Signs and symbols
Construction Area
Levels in dB(A)
> 75
40 60 80
--==---===---m
( ( SAXELBY A~oQ,U~II~.~
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Table 6
Construction Noise Levels (dBA)
Equipment
Measured Daytime
Noise Level, Ldn
Predicted Construction
Noise Level, Ldn Change
Site Preparation
R1 (Residential) 58 66 +8
R2 (Residential) 58 62 +4
R3 (Residential) 52-58 40 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R5 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R6 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R7 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R8 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
Grading
R1 (Residential) 58 66 +8
R2 (Residential) 58 62 +4
R3 (Residential) 52-58 40 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R5 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R6 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R7 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R8 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
Building Construction
R1 (Residential) 58 65 +7
R2 (Residential) 58 61 +3
R3 (Residential) 52-58 39 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R5 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R6 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R7 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R8 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
Paving
R1 (Residential) 58 64 +6
R2 (Residential) 58 60 +2
R3 (Residential) 52-58 38 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R5 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R6 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
R7 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
R8 (Residential) 52-58 56 +4
Architectural Coating
R1 (Residential) 58 57 +0
R2 (Residential) 58 53 +0
R3 (Residential) 52-58 31 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 51 +0
R5 (Residential) 52-58 51 +0
R6 (Residential) 52-58 50 +0
R7 (Residential) 52-58 50 +0
R8 (Residential) 52-58 49 +0
Note: Measurements recorded from Site LT-1.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Table 7
Baseline* Traffic Noise Level and Traffic Noise Level
Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
Baseline
Conditions
Baseline Plus
Project Change
SR 1 SR 1 North to
Reina Del Mar Avenue 69.8 69.9 0.0
SR 1 Reina Del Mar Avenue to
Fassler Avenue 72.4 72.5 0.0
SR 1 Fassler Avenue to
Crespi Drive 70.2 70.2 0.0
SR 1 Crespi Drive to
Linda Mar Boulevard 66.3 66.3 0.0
SR 1 Linda Mar Boulevard to
SR 1 South 66.6 66.6 0.0
Reina Del Mar
Avenue
SR 1 to Reina Del
Mar Avenue East 62.3 62.3 0.0
Fassler Avenue SR 1 to
Fassler Avenue East 61.2 61.3 0.1
Crespi Drive East of SR 1 62.8 62.9 0.1
* Refer to Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS for additional information regarding the Baseline traffic conditions.

Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.

Table 8
Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and Traffic Noise Level
Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative
Plus Project Change
SR 1 SR 1 North to
Reina Del Mar Avenue 69.9 69.9 0.0
SR 1 Reina Del Mar Avenue to
Fassler Avenue 72.5 72.5 0.0
SR 1 Fassler Avenue to
Crespi Drive 70.2 70.3 0.0
SR 1 Crespi Drive to
Linda Mar Boulevard 66.4 66.4 0.0
SR 1 Linda Mar Boulevard to
SR 1 South 66.6 66.6 0.0
Reina Del Mar
Avenue
SR 1 to Reina Del
Mar Avenue East 62.3 62.3 0.0
Fassler Avenue SR 1 to
Fassler Avenue East 61.3 61.3 0.0
Crespi Drive East of SR 1 62.7 62.8 0.1
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.

Per the FICON’s criteria for long-term project-related noise level increases, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise sensitive uses, a +1.5 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. As 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
shown in the tables above, the maximum increases in traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 0.1 dBA. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards.

Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operations of the proposed project 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, a less-than-significant impact would occur. 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 of the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

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

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 9, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. As shown in the table, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.

The proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Although noise and vibration associated with the construction phases of the project would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity, construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading, placement of utilities, and construction of foundations. Table 10 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances.

The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of pile drivers. If pile driving is not required for project construction, next highest source of groundborne vibration would be the use of vibratory compactors. For the purpose of this analysis, the use of pile drivers and vibratory compactors/rollers are conservatively assumed to be used during construction of the proposed project.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Table 9
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 10
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 50 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 feet
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Pile Driving (impact) 0.644 0.228 0.081
Pile Driving (sonic) 0.170 0.060 0.023
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory
Compactor/Roller

0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.

Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially pile driving and vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 50 feet, or further, from typical construction activities. Thus, per the vibration levels shown in Table 10, construction vibrations associated with pile driving could exceed the 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold.

Based on the above, construction of the proposed project could expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels associated with the use of pile drivers, and a potentially significant impact could occur. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-1. Pile driving shall be prohibited during construction of the proposed project.

Compliance with such shall be ensured by the City of Pacific Planning Division.
c. The nearest airport relative to the project site, San Francisco International Airport, is located approximately five miles east of the site. In addition, the project site is located approximately nine miles north of Half Moon Bay Airport. Per the SFO Plan, the project site does not lie within designated Safety Compatibility Zones or forecasted noise contours for the airport.32 According to the San Mateo County Comprehensive ALUCP, the site is not located within an Airport Safety Zone for Half Moon Bay Airport, and, thus, would not be significantly affected by the airport.33 Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not experience elevated noise levels associated with either airport, and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports.
32 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. 33 San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?

µ

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

µ

Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of 19 residential units. Using the City of Pacifica average persons per household value of 2.71, the proposed project’s direct population growth from the addition of 19 residences would result in approximately 52 new residents.34 The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the 2023 population of Pacifica to be approximately 36,426.35 The increase in population associated with the proposed project would constitute a 0.14 percent increase in the City’s population. A 0.14 percent increase in population would not be considered substantial growth. The project would not result in any indirect population growth from extension of major infrastructure because, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS, adequate utility infrastructure already exists in the project area to be available to support the proposed project. Finally, considering the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the population growth that would occur as a result of the project has been previously anticipated by the City and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the potential growth induced by the proposed commercial components of the project is not likely to be significant, given that the project is consistent with what has been anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
b. Parcel 1 is currently undeveloped, and Parcel 2 is not developed with any residential structures. As such, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of any people or housing. In addition, the proposed project would introduce 19 new residential units to the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 34 City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021. 35 U.S. Census Bureau. QuickFacts Pacifica city, California. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/pacificacitycalifornia/PST045223 . Accessed July 2024. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?

µ

b. Police protection?

µ

c. Schools?

µ

d. Parks?

µ

e. Other Public Facilities?

µ

Discussion
a. In 2003, the cities of Daly City, Brisbane, and Pacifica collaborated to form the NCFA through a Joint Powers Authority agreement. The NCFA provides fire protection and medical emergency services in the City of Pacifica as well as the other two communities.

Under the NCFA, fire stations and fire companies are strategically located throughout the three communities, which provide rapid assistance for medical, fire or other hazardous situations. The nearest fire station relative to the project site is the Pacifica Fire Department located at 1100 Linda Mar Boulevard, which is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site. According to the NCFA, each station staffs approximately three personnel with several response vehicles.36 The target response time for emergencies and non-emergencies within City limits is approximately 6 minutes, 59 seconds. However, the NCFA has an actual response time of approximately four minutes.

Due to the close proximity of the station to the project site, response times at the site are expected to be within the targeted response time. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all NCFA standard conditions of approval related to compliance with the California Fire Code and the associated fire prevention and suppression systems including but not limited to fire sprinklers within all buildings.

Because the NCFA would provide adequate fire protection services to proposed project, and because the proposed project would be required to include adequate fire safety design elements, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 fire protection services. b. The Pacifica Police Department provides police protection services throughout the City, and the station is located at 2075 Coast Highway. The Pacifica Police Department has 39 sworn officer positions, which equates to approximately one officer per 1,000 residents.37 Using the City of Pacifica average persons per household value of 2.71, the proposed project’s direct population growth from the addition of 19 residences would result in approximately 52 new residents, which is substantially below the threshold of 1,000 new 36 Barry Biermann, Deputy Fire Chief, North County Fire Authority. Personal communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. June 4, 2020. 37 City of Pacifica. Pacifica General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3.12-2]. January 2022. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
residents which would require the hiring of a new officer.38 Thus, the minor population growth associated with the proposed project would not necessitate the hiring of new officers and/or construction of new or expanded facilities. Additionally, the commercial component of the proposed project is located within existing police patrol routes and service areas and would not necessitate the hiring of additional officers or the construction of new police facilities.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees per Chapter 14 of the City’s Municipal Code. Development impact fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of public facilities needed as a result of new development. Should any new police facilities or staffing be required as a result of the proposed project, the required payment of development impact fees would ensure that such needs are met.

Based on the above, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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 police protection services. c. The project site is located within the Pacifica School District and the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD). The Pacifica School District addresses increased demand for school services within the District through the use of Bond Funds and school district impact fees charged to new development, and implementation of the Facilities Master Plan.

Because the proposed project would include 19 residential units, the project applicant would be required to pay the appropriate school district impact fees. Specifically, the project would be required to pay $3.79 per square foot, which is split between the Pacifica School District ($2.27 per square foot) and JUHSD ($1.52 per square foot). It should be noted that Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving …the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996(b)). Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” According to the Pacifica School District, the district currently has a capacity of approximately 3,250 students with a current enrollment of 3,142 students. Development of the proposed project would be limited to a total of 19 residences and, thus, would not generate a substantial number of new students to area schools.39 For example, the estimated student yield factor for the Pacifica Union School District is 0.5 students/unit.40 Thus, development of the 19 units would add approximately ten students to the Pacifica School District, which can be accommodated by the current available capacity.

Based on the above, increased demand for school facilities associated with construction of the proposed project would be accommodated by existing schools within the City.

Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 through the payment of school impact fees. As such, the proposed project would not result 38 City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021. 39 Heather Olsen, Superintendent, Pacifica School District. Personal Communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 27, 2020. 40 Pacifica School District. Level I Developer Fee Study for Pacifica School District. June 14, 2018. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to schools in the project area.
d. The proposed project would involve the development of 19 residential dwelling units on

1.68 acres of land. The project would not include any dedicated park areas. The project would be subject to Chapter 19, Park Facilities Impact Fee, of the City’s Municipal Code, which states the following:

This chapter is enacted to require the dedication of such funds and/or lands to offset the impact on the need for parks, recreational facilities, and open space created by new residential development which does not require a tentative subdivision or parcel map… The fees due under this chapter are collected for the acquisition of lands and the construction of improvements and facilities for which the City has established an account, appropriated funds and adopted a proposed acquisition and construction schedule, and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of a building permit for a residential dwelling unit, single-family residence or mobile home space, or for the addition to such of one or more bedrooms.

Therefore, given that the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable park in-lieu fees in order to ensure that sufficient funding is available for Citywide park development, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on parks. e. The City contains two public libraries: the Pacifica-Sharp Park Library and the PacificaSanchez Library. The libraries constitute two branches of the San Mateo County Library system. Per a 1999 Joint Powers Authority agreement, the City is responsible for funding maintenance of the two libraries. The proposed project includes a total of 19 residential dwelling units. Due to the relatively small project size, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for library services, and a less-than-significant impact would occur in regard to libraries or other public facilities. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

µ

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?

µ

Discussion
a,b. The proposed project would include development of 19 residential units and commercial space. Recreational or park facilities are not proposed as part of the proposed project. As discussed in Section XV, Public Services, of this IS, the project would be subject to payment of a Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 19 of the City’s Municipal Code. Payment of the Park Facilities Impact Fee would provide funding for future parkland or recreational facilities. Park development in the future would be subject to projectspecific review under CEQA. Furthermore, due to the relatively small project size, and the proximity to existing recreational facilities in the City, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
µ

b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? µ

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
µ

d. Result in inadequate emergency access? µ

Discussion
a. The proposed project would result in an increase in employee vehicle and public vehicle traffic on the street system surrounding the project site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, determination of traffic impacts is not based on vehicle level of service (LOS). However, the potential remains for the proposed project to result in conflicts with City programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to transportation facilities, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, a potentially significant.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
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. The OPR released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018, which provides recommendations regarding VMT evaluation methodology, significance thresholds, and screening thresholds for land use projects.41 While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the impact of driving. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15064.3(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. Given that the proposed project would result in increased vehicle trip generation on local roadways and increased VMT, further analysis of VMT attributable to the project is required to determine whether the project’s increase in VMT would conflict with Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
c,d. The proposed project would include the on-site development of a two-story mixed-use building, two three-story residential buildings, a commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums, as well as associated surface parking areas, drive aisles, and 41 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December 2018.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
other improvements. The proposed project would also involve off-site improvements, including the construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the Pacifica Community Center immediately to the west at 540 Crespi Drive.

Due to the increase in vehicle traffic on the surrounding roadway network, the proposed project could cause an increase in traffic-related hazards or affect emergency access in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to an increase in hazards from design features or incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access to the project.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).

µ

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.

µ

Discussion
a,b. Based on a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File, the project site could contain Tribal Cultural Resources.42 As a result, information request letters were sent to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Batista and the Ohlone Indian Tribe; however, responses from the tribes have not been received.

Furthermore, the City of Pacifica has not received requests to be notified of development projects (pursuant to AB 52) from any federally recognized Native American tribes in the project region and, thus, AB 52 project notification letters were not distributed by the City.

The City, as a lead agency, has not identified any tribal resources on the site. Prior to the proposed project’s resubmittal, in compliance with SB 18, the City of Pacifica sent SB 18 notification letters to all the tribes included on the NAHC’s tribal consultation list for San Mateo County. The letters were distributed on November 16, 2021. Requests for consultation were not received.

Considering the construction activity associated with the Pacifica Community Center and the demolition of the previously existing on-site structure, portions of the project site that would be developed as part of the project, including the off-site improvement area, has been previously and recently disturbed. Additionally, recent construction of an equalization basin in the southern portion of 540 Crespi Drive included substantial excavation, and tribal cultural resources were not identified during such ground disturbance. Due to the previous disturbance of the site, the probability of finding tribal cultural resources on the surface of the site is unlikely.

However, the possibility exists that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
42 Native American Heritage Commission. 570 Crespi Drive Project, San Mateo County. February 28, 2020. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

µ

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?

µ

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?

µ

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?

µ

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

µ

Discussion
a-c. Electricity, telecommunications, water, and sanitary sewer services would be provided by way of new connections to existing infrastructure in the immediate project area. Electricity services for the proposed project would be provided by PG&E. Brief discussions of water, sewer service, stormwater drainage, electrical, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project are included below. Implementation of the proposed off-site improvements would not affect utility demand.

Water
As noted in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS, the proposed project would receive water service from the NCCWD. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the NCCWD is estimated to have sufficient water supplies to serve the City through the year 2045 to accommodate buildout of the General Plan.43 Considering the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the increase in water demand associated with buildout of the project site was accounted for by the City.

Furthermore, the UWMP estimates a daily usage of 65 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).

As such, the residential component of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a demand of approximately 3,069 gallons per day, or 1.12 million gallons per year (MGY) (53 residents X 57.9 GPCD = 3,069 GPD). Because the tenants of the commercial component of the proposed project are unknown, the number of daily staff and customers which would generate increased demand for potable water is unknown at this time.

Nonetheless, for the purposes of this analysis, an average of 20 employees is conservatively assumed. Thus, the commercial component of the proposed project is 43 North Coast County Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
anticipated to generate a demand of approximately 1,158 gallons per day, or 0.42 million MGY (20 staff X 57.9 GPCD = 1,158 GPD). In total, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a water demand of approximately 1.54 MGY.

Per Table 7-4 of the UWMP, in the year 2045, the NCCWD anticipates an excess water supply of 583 MGY, which is enough to accommodate the 1.54 MGY increase associated with development of the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, as sufficient water supplies are available to adequately serve the proposed project.

Wastewater
Sewer utilities for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Pacifica. The City’s wastewater is treated at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP), located approximately 1.28 miles north of the project site. The CCWRP’s average discharge is 1.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to Calera Creek, which flows about 0.5-miles through constructed wetlands and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.44 The CCWRP was designed to handle an annual average daily wastewater flow of 4.0 mgd, and is anticipated to have enough capacity to accommodate buildout of the General Plan. Considering the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the wastewater generation associated with the proposed project has been generally anticipated for the project site and considered in wastewater infrastructure planning efforts.

Furthermore, residents throughout the City are required to pay an annual sewer charge based on water consumption rates for each unit, per Chapter 6 of the City Municipal Code.

Such charges would help to ensure that adequate capacity is available to serve the project’s demand for services.

Given the remaining available capacity within the wastewater facility, the proposed project would not result in inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the existing commitments.

Stormwater
As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology, of this IS, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would be treated on-site prior to discharge into the vacant land to the south or into the City’s stormwater drainage system.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure X-1 would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction activities to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, because the site has been anticipated for development by the City’s General Plan, impacts to stormwater systems resulting from development of the site have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Other Utilities
Electricity and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. PG&E would provide electricity services to the project site. The proposed project would not require major 44 Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. City of Pacifica, Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wastewater Collection System, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendas/2017/April/7_ssr.pdf. April 12, 2017. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Furthermore, adequate wastewater capacity would be available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the CCWRP’s existing commitments. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d,e. Solid waste collection services for the City are provided by Recology of the Coast, a Division of Recology. Services provided to the City by Recology include curbside pick-up of garbage, recyclables, and green waste. Solid waste from within the City of Pacific is disposed of at the Ox Mountain Landfill. Per CalRecycle, the Ox Mountain Landfill has 22,180,000 cubic yards of remaining available capacity, or approximately 36.7 percent of the facility’s maximum permitted capacity of 60,500,000 cubic yards.45 The Ox Mountain Landfill is planned for closure in 2034. After the Ox Mountain Landfill ceases operations, either the Los Trancos Canyon Landfill will undergo expansion, or the Apanolio Canyon Landfill will be opened for fill.46
The proposed project would generate solid waste associated with construction activities and project operations. Construction debris would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and standards. All material exported during site preparation and grading activities would be off-hauled to the Ox Mountain Landfill.

Considering the relatively small size of the proposed project, as compared to the development of the entire Ox Mountain Landfill service area, sufficient capacity would exist to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs generated by the proposed project.

Based on the above, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
45 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed June 2021. 46 City of San Mateo. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report [pg 4.11-38]. July 2009. 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XX. WILDFIRE.

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

µ

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?

µ

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?

µ

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?

µ

Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.47 The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Pacifica, is surrounded by existing development, and is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area. While the project site is located among a few trees present on the site, some trees and shrubs would be removed entirely, and the remaining would be maintained according to City procedures. In addition, Parcel 1 is consistent with the site’s current MUC land use designation. With respect to Parcel 2, which is currently developed with a driveway and roadway to provide access to the Pacifica Community Center parking lot, the proposed General Plan Amendment would ensure consistency with the same land use designation. As such, buildout of the project site with residential and commercial uses and the associated wildfire risk has been previously considered by the City. Thus, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
47 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
µ

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)?
µ

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

µ

Discussion
a. While unlikely, the project could result in the uncovering of previously undiscovered archeological and/or paleontological resources during project construction. However, the proposed project would comply with applicable State and local regulations related to unintentional discovery, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS. Given compliance with Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory.

However, as discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS, special-status species and sensitive habitat types have the potential to occur on-site, and could be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project could degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
b. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of Pacifica, could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the project area. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur with regard to cumulative impacts.

Further analysis of the above impacts will be included in the Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Statutorily Required Sections chapters of the 570 Crespi Drive Project EIR.
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study

October 2024
c. The proposed project could expose humans to hazards relating to water quality during construction and operation. In addition, the project could potentially expose neighboring noise-sensitive receptors to excess noise levels during construction. However, this IS includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts to less-thansignificant levels. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with all applicable building standards and codes to ensure adequate safety is provided for the future residents of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to environmental effects that could cause adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant.

Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
1 / 92
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report
Table of Contents1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information1.2. Land Use Types1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
2 / 92

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated3.12. Paving (2025) - Mitigated3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
3 / 92

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated4.5.2. Mitigated
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
4 / 92

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
5 / 92

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
6 / 92

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings5.10.3. Landscape Equipment5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated5.12.2. Mitigated
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
7 / 92

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
8 / 92

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
9 / 92

1. Basic Project Information1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field ValueProject Name 570 Crespi DriveConstruction Start Date 6/2/2025Operational Year 2027Lead Agency City of PacificaLand Use Scale Project/siteAnalysis Level for Defaults CountyWindspeed (m/s) 4.60Precipitation (days) 43.0Location 37.59819136044743, -122.49929944787738County San MateoCity PacificaAir District Bay Area AQMDAir Basin San Francisco Bay AreaTAZ 1224EDFZ 1Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric CompanyGas Utility Pacific Gas & ElectricApp Version 2022.1.1.25

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special LandscapeArea (sq ft)
Population Description
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
10 / 92
Condo/Townhouse 16.0 Dwelling Unit 0.78 36,839 5,602 — 46.0 — Medical OfficeBuilding

3.17 1000sqft 0.07 3,165 7,953 — — —
Parking Lot 15.0 Space 0.13 0.00 0.00 — — —Apartments LowRise

3.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 3,692 0.00 — 9.00 —
Other AsphaltSurfaces

5.56 1000sqft 0.13 0.00 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 3.18 2.93 15.0 15.4 0.03 0.65 7.31 7.96 0.60 3.48 4.08 — 3,127 3,127 0.19 0.12 1.44 3,167Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 3.18 2.92 9.98 11.7 0.02 0.36 0.16 0.52 0.33 0.04 0.37 — 2,145 2,145 0.09 0.03 0.02 2,157AverageDaily(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 2.22 2.04 6.83 8.29 0.02 0.23 0.88 1.05 0.21 0.41 0.57 — 1,530 1,530 0.06 0.02 0.18 1,538 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
11 / 92
Annual(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.40 0.37 1.25 1.51 < 0.005 0.04 0.16 0.19 0.04 0.07 0.10 — 253 253 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 255

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily -Summer(Max) ——————————————————
2025 3.18 2.93 15.0 15.4 0.03 0.65 7.31 7.96 0.60 3.48 4.08 — 3,127 3,127 0.19 0.12 1.44 3,1672026 3.11 2.86 9.56 11.7 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.04 0.33 — 2,149 2,149 0.09 0.03 0.59 2,160Daily -Winter(Max) ——————————————————
2025 3.18 2.92 9.98 11.7 0.02 0.36 0.16 0.52 0.33 0.04 0.37 — 2,145 2,145 0.09 0.03 0.02 2,1572026 3.11 2.86 9.57 11.6 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.04 0.33 — 2,141 2,141 0.09 0.03 0.02 2,1532027 3.04 2.81 9.22 11.5 0.02 0.28 0.16 0.45 0.26 0.04 0.30 — 2,137 2,137 0.09 0.03 0.01 2,147AverageDaily ——————————————————
2025 0.99 0.88 4.40 4.99 0.01 0.17 0.88 1.05 0.16 0.41 0.57 — 938 938 0.05 0.02 0.15 9462026 2.22 2.04 6.83 8.29 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.21 0.03 0.24 — 1,530 1,530 0.06 0.02 0.18 1,5382027 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 58.9Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2025 0.18 0.16 0.80 0.91 < 0.005 0.03 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.07 0.10 — 155 155 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 1572026 0.40 0.37 1.25 1.51 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 253 253 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 2552027 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.71 9.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.75

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
12 / 92
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 CO2eDaily -Summer(Max) ——————————————————
2025 3.18 2.93 15.0 15.4 0.03 0.65 7.31 7.96 0.60 3.48 4.08 — 3,127 3,127 0.19 0.12 1.44 3,1672026 3.11 2.86 9.56 11.7 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.04 0.33 — 2,149 2,149 0.09 0.03 0.59 2,160Daily -Winter(Max) ——————————————————
2025 3.18 2.92 9.98 11.7 0.02 0.36 0.16 0.52 0.33 0.04 0.37 — 2,145 2,145 0.09 0.03 0.02 2,1572026 3.11 2.86 9.57 11.6 0.02 0.32 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.04 0.33 — 2,141 2,141 0.09 0.03 0.02 2,1532027 3.04 2.81 9.22 11.5 0.02 0.28 0.16 0.45 0.26 0.04 0.30 — 2,137 2,137 0.09 0.03 0.01 2,147AverageDaily ——————————————————
2025 0.99 0.88 4.40 4.99 0.01 0.17 0.88 1.05 0.16 0.41 0.57 — 938 938 0.05 0.02 0.15 9462026 2.22 2.04 6.83 8.29 0.02 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.21 0.03 0.24 — 1,530 1,530 0.06 0.02 0.18 1,5382027 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 58.6 58.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 58.9Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2025 0.18 0.16 0.80 0.91 < 0.005 0.03 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.07 0.10 — 155 155 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 1572026 0.40 0.37 1.25 1.51 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 0.04 — 253 253 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 2552027 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.71 9.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.75

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against ThresholdsCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Unmit. 2.04 1.95 0.71 8.45 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,476 2,504 2.92 0.07 6.28 2,606 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
13 / 92
Mit. 2.04 1.95 0.71 8.45 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,438 2,466 2.91 0.07 6.28 2,567 %Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% — — 1%
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.90 1.82 0.80 6.94 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,376 2,404 2.92 0.08 0.52 2,502Mit. 1.90 1.82 0.80 6.94 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,338 2,366 2.92 0.08 0.52 2,463%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% — — 2%
AverageDaily(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 1.83 1.75 0.67 6.25 0.02 0.02 1.70 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 28.1 2,043 2,071 2.91 0.07 2.51 2,166Mit. 1.83 1.75 0.67 6.25 0.02 0.02 1.70 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 28.1 2,004 2,032 2.90 0.07 2.51 2,127%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% — — 2%
Annual(Max)
——————————————————
Unmit. 0.33 0.32 0.12 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 4.65 338 343 0.48 0.01 0.42 359Mit. 0.33 0.32 0.12 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 4.65 332 336 0.48 0.01 0.42 352%Reduced — — — — — — — — — — — — 2% 2% < 0.5% 1% — 2%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Mobile 0.79 0.72 0.55 7.16 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,191 2,191 0.07 0.07 5.91 2,219 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
14 / 92
Area 1.23 1.22 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 278 278 0.03 < 0.005 — 279Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 2.04 1.95 0.71 8.45 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,476 2,504 2.92 0.07 6.28 2,606Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Mobile 0.78 0.71 0.65 6.87 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,094 2,094 0.08 0.07 0.15 2,118Area 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 278 278 0.03 < 0.005 — 279Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 1.90 1.82 0.80 6.94 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,376 2,404 2.92 0.08 0.52 2,502AverageDaily ——————————————————
Mobile 0.65 0.59 0.51 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.70 1.71 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,759 1,759 0.06 0.06 2.14 1,780Area 1.16 1.16 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.71Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 278 278 0.03 < 0.005 — 279Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 1.83 1.75 0.67 6.25 0.02 0.02 1.70 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 28.1 2,043 2,071 2.91 0.07 2.51 2,166Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.35 295Area 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 46.0 46.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.2 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
15 / 92
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.19 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.31 0.00 4.31 0.43 0.00 — 15.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06Total 0.33 0.32 0.12 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 4.65 338 343 0.48 0.01 0.42 359

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Mobile 0.79 0.72 0.55 7.16 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,191 2,191 0.07 0.07 5.91 2,219Area 1.23 1.22 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 240 240 0.02 < 0.005 — 241Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 2.04 1.95 0.71 8.45 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,438 2,466 2.91 0.07 6.28 2,567Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Mobile 0.78 0.71 0.65 6.87 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,094 2,094 0.08 0.07 0.15 2,118Area 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 240 240 0.02 < 0.005 — 241Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 1.90 1.82 0.80 6.94 0.02 0.02 2.09 2.12 0.02 0.53 0.55 28.1 2,338 2,366 2.92 0.08 0.52 2,463 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
16 / 92
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily
Mobile 0.65 0.59 0.51 5.57 0.02 0.01 1.70 1.71 0.01 0.43 0.44 — 1,759 1,759 0.06 0.06 2.14 1,780Area 1.16 1.16 0.01 0.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.70 1.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.71Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 240 240 0.02 < 0.005 — 241Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Total 1.83 1.75 0.67 6.25 0.02 0.02 1.70 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 28.1 2,004 2,032 2.90 0.07 2.51 2,127Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.35 295Area 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 39.7 39.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.8Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.19Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.31 0.00 4.31 0.43 0.00 — 15.1Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06Total 0.33 0.32 0.12 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 4.65 332 336 0.48 0.01 0.42 352

3. Construction Emissions Details3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.56 1.31 12.1 12.1 0.02 0.56 — 0.56 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
17 / 92
DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 6.26 6.26 — 3.00 3.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 61.8 61.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 62.1Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
18 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Site Preparation (2025) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.56 1.31 12.1 12.1 0.02 0.56 — 0.56 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,065 2,065 0.08 0.02 — 2,072 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 6.26 6.26 — 3.00 3.00 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
19 / 92
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.88 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 61.8 61.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 62.1Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.33Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
20 / 92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Grading (2025) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 7.09 7.09 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.20 0.17 1.54 1.59 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 — 270 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.78 0.78 — 0.38 0.38 — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
21 / 92
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.5 44.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.7 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 82.4 82.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 82.9Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.11 0.01 0.91 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 590 590 0.09 0.09 1.17 621Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.55 8.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.68Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 64.6 64.6 0.01 0.01 0.06 68.0Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.3 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
22 / 92

3.4. Grading (2025) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 7.09 7.09 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.20 0.17 1.54 1.59 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 269 269 0.01 < 0.005 — 270 DustFromMaterialMovement
— — — — — — 0.78 0.78 — 0.38 0.38 — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.04 0.03 0.28 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 44.5 44.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.7 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
23 / 92
Dust — — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —FromMaterialMovement Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 82.4 82.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 82.9Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.11 0.01 0.91 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 590 590 0.09 0.09 1.17 621Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.55 8.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.68Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 64.6 64.6 0.01 0.01 0.06 68.0Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.42 1.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.44Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.3

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
24 / 92
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.32 0.26 2.21 2.47 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 444 444 0.02 < 0.005 — 446 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.06 0.05 0.40 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 73.8 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 122Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 73.4 0.01 0.01 0.18 76.8Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
25 / 92
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Winter(Max)
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 116Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 73.4 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 76.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.7Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.9Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.68 4.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.75Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.13Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
26 / 92
Off-RoadEquipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.32 0.26 2.21 2.47 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 444 444 0.02 < 0.005 — 446 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.06 0.05 0.40 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 73.5 73.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 73.8 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 122Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 73.4 0.01 0.01 0.18 76.8Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 116Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.4 73.4 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 76.7Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.7Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.1 18.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.9 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
27 / 92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.68 4.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.75Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.00 3.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.13Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.87 0.72 6.12 7.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,286 1,286 0.05 0.01 — 1,291 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
28 / 92
Off-RoadEquipment

0.16 0.13 1.12 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 — 214 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 119Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 72.0 72.0 0.01 0.01 0.17 75.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 114Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 72.0 72.0 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 75.3Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 81.4Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 51.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 53.8Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.5Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.51 8.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.91Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
29 / 92
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.87 0.72 6.12 7.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,286 1,286 0.05 0.01 — 1,291 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.16 0.13 1.12 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 — 214 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 119Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 72.0 72.0 0.01 0.01 0.17 75.4Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
30 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 114Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 72.0 72.0 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 75.3Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 80.3 80.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 81.4Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 51.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 53.8Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.5Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.51 8.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.91Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
31 / 92
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.8 45.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.0 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.59 7.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.61 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 110Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 70.4 70.4 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 73.5Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.81 2.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.82Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.79 1.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
32 / 92

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.02 0.21 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 45.8 45.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.0 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.59 7.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.61 Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
33 / 92
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 110 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 70.4 70.4 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 73.5Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.81 2.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.82Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.79 1.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.87Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.47Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.59 0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
34 / 92
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.03 0.25 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 54.3 54.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.5 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.00 9.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.03 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 104Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.35 5.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.42Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
35 / 92

3.12. Paving (2025) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.59 0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.03 0.25 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 54.3 54.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.5 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.00 9.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.03 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
36 / 92
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 104 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
AverageDaily
——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.35 5.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.42Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.90Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2025) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
37 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.03 0.19 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.86 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 24.3Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
38 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.9 22.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.2Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.03 5.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.10Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2025) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
39 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.03 0.03 0.19 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 29.3 29.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.37 0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.85 4.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.86 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.2 24.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 24.3Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
40 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.9 22.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 23.2Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.03 5.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.10Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.83 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.84Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2026) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
41 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.10 0.09 0.61 0.81 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.02 0.02 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.22 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 23.8Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
42 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.3Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.70Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2026) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
43 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.10 0.09 0.61 0.81 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.20 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment

0.02 0.02 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.22 0.22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.7 23.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 23.8Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
44 / 92
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.7Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.1 16.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 16.3Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.66 2.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.70Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. Architectural Coating (2027) - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
45 / 92
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.05 7.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.08 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Off-RoadEquipment < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.1Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
46 / 92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.18. Architectural Coating (2027) - MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eOnsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ArchitecturalCoatings

1.69 1.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AverageDaily
——————————————————
Off-RoadEquipment

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.05 7.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.08 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
47 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-RoadEquipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 ArchitecturalCoatings

0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsitetruck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Daily,Winter(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 22.1Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00AverageDaily ——————————————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
48 / 92

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use4.1.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.39 0.36 0.27 3.55 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.04 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,087 1,087 0.03 0.03 2.93 1,101 MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.33 0.30 0.23 2.95 0.01 < 0.005 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 — 900 900 0.03 0.03 2.43 911 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise

0.07 0.07 0.05 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 204 204 0.01 0.01 0.55 206 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.79 0.72 0.55 7.16 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,191 2,191 0.07 0.07 5.91 2,219Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.39 0.35 0.32 3.40 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.04 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,039 1,039 0.04 0.04 0.08 1,051 MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.32 0.29 0.27 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 — 860 860 0.03 0.03 0.06 870 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
49 / 92
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Lot ApartmentsLow Rise

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.01 197 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.78 0.71 0.65 6.87 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,094 2,094 0.08 0.07 0.15 2,118Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse

0.06 0.06 0.05 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 154 154 0.01 0.01 0.19 156 MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 109 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 29.0 29.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 29.3 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.35 295

4.1.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
50 / 92
Condo/T 0.39 0.36 0.27 3.55 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.04 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,087 1,087 0.03 0.03 2.93 1,101ownhous MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.33 0.30 0.23 2.95 0.01 < 0.005 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 — 900 900 0.03 0.03 2.43 911 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise

0.07 0.07 0.05 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 204 204 0.01 0.01 0.55 206 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.79 0.72 0.55 7.16 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,191 2,191 0.07 0.07 5.91 2,219Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.39 0.35 0.32 3.40 0.01 0.01 1.04 1.04 0.01 0.26 0.27 — 1,039 1,039 0.04 0.04 0.08 1,051 MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.32 0.29 0.27 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.86 0.86 < 0.005 0.22 0.22 — 860 860 0.03 0.03 0.06 870 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise

0.07 0.07 0.06 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.20 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 195 195 0.01 0.01 0.01 197 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.78 0.71 0.65 6.87 0.02 0.01 2.09 2.10 0.01 0.53 0.54 — 2,094 2,094 0.08 0.07 0.15 2,118Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
51 / 92
Condo/T 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 154 154 0.01 0.01 0.19 156ownhouse MedicalOfficeBuilding

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 109 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 29.0 29.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 29.3 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.12 0.11 0.09 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.35 295

4.2. Energy4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — 38.2 38.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.6
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 37.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 37.8
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
52 / 92
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.29 6.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.35nts OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.6Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — 38.2 38.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 38.6
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 37.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 37.8
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.29 6.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.35 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.6Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — — 6.33 6.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.39 MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.20 6.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.26 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
53 / 92
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05ntsLow Rise OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.0 14.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.2

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 37.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 37.8
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.26 6.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.32 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 46.5 46.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.9Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
54 / 92
Condo/T — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ownhous MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 37.4 37.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 37.8
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.26 6.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.32 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 46.5 46.5 0.01 < 0.005 — 46.9Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — 6.20 6.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.26 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.46 ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.04 1.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 7.69 7.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.77

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
55 / 92
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eUse Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 150 150 0.01 < 0.005 — 150 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 193 193 0.02 < 0.005 — 194Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 150 150 0.01 < 0.005 — 150 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
56 / 92
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00AsphaltSurfaces Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 193 193 0.02 < 0.005 — 194Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.9 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.99 3.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.00 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.18 3.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.19 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 32.0 32.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.1

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

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 150 150 0.01 < 0.005 — 150 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
57 / 92
ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 193 193 0.02 < 0.005 — 194Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse

0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 150 150 0.01 < 0.005 — 150 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.2 ParkingLot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 19.2 19.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.2 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 193 193 0.02 < 0.005 — 194Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24.8 24.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.9 MedicalOfficeBuilding
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.99 3.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
58 / 92
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00Lot ApartmentsLow Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.18 3.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.19 OtherAsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 32.0 32.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 32.1

4.3. Area Emissions by Source4.3.1. UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ConsumerProducts

0.94 0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.12 0.12 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46 Total 1.23 1.22 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
59 / 92
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ConsumerProducts

0.94 0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ConsumerProducts

0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 Total 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28

4.3.2. MitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ConsumerProducts

0.94 0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
60 / 92
Architect 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —ural LandscapeEquipment

0.12 0.12 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46 Total 1.23 1.22 0.01 1.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 3.45 3.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.46Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ConsumerProducts

0.94 0.94 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.10 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00ConsumerProducts

0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ArchitecturalCoatings

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
LandscapeEquipment

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28 Total 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.28 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.28

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
61 / 92

4.4.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.11 2.26 3.37 0.11 < 0.005 — 7.05 MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 1.62 2.38 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.90 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.39 0.60 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.29 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.11 2.26 3.37 0.11 < 0.005 — 7.05 MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 1.62 2.38 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.90 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
62 / 92
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.39 0.60 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.29nts OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.37 0.56 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.17 MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.27 0.39 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.81 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.19

4.4.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.11 2.26 3.37 0.11 < 0.005 — 7.05 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
63 / 92
Medical — — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 1.62 2.38 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.90OfficeBuilding ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.39 0.60 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.29 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.11 2.26 3.37 0.11 < 0.005 — 7.05 MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.76 1.62 2.38 0.08 < 0.005 — 4.90 ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.39 0.60 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.29 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.08 4.27 6.35 0.21 0.01 — 13.2Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — 0.18 0.37 0.56 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.17 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
64 / 92
Medical — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 0.27 0.39 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.81OfficeBuilding ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.71 1.05 0.04 < 0.005 — 2.19

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use4.5.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.37 0.00 6.37 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.4 0.00 18.4 1.84 0.00 — 64.5
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.25 0.00 1.25 0.12 0.00 — 4.36
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
65 / 92
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00AsphaltSurfaces Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.37 0.00 6.37 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.4 0.00 18.4 1.84 0.00 — 64.5
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.25 0.00 1.25 0.12 0.00 — 4.36
OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.11 0.00 — 3.69
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.05 0.00 3.05 0.30 0.00 — 10.7
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 — 0.72
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
66 / 92
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00AsphaltSurfaces Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.31 0.00 4.31 0.43 0.00 — 15.1

4.5.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.37 0.00 6.37 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 18.4 0.00 18.4 1.84 0.00 — 64.5
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.25 0.00 1.25 0.12 0.00 — 4.36
OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.37 0.00 6.37 0.64 0.00 — 22.3
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
67 / 92
Medical — — — — — — — — — — — 18.4 0.00 18.4 1.84 0.00 — 64.5OfficeBuilding ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.25 0.00 1.25 0.12 0.00 — 4.36
OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 26.0 0.00 26.0 2.60 0.00 — 91.1Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — 1.05 0.00 1.05 0.11 0.00 — 3.69
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.05 0.00 3.05 0.30 0.00 — 10.7
ParkingLot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.00 — 0.72
OtherAsphaltSurfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.31 0.00 4.31 0.43 0.00 — 15.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use4.6.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
68 / 92
LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Condo/Townhouse — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
69 / 92
ApartmeLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06

4.6.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.08 0.08
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.37
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
70 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/Townhouse
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
MedicalOfficeBuilding
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
ApartmentsLow Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type4.7.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
71 / 92
EquipmeType
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 Type4.8.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
72 / 92

4.8.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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 Type4.9.1. UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
73 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) EquipmentType
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 Type4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
74 / 92
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Winter(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - UnmitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
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 - UnmitigatedCriteria 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 CO2eDaily,Summer(Max) ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
75 / 92
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
76 / 92
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,Summer(Max)
——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) LandUse
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 - MitigatedCriteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
77 / 92
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Daily,Winter(Max) ——————————————————
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Removed
——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —Sequestered ——————————————————
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
78 / 92
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ————————————————————

5. Activity Data5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase DescriptionSite Preparation Site Preparation 6/2/2025 6/3/2025 5.00 2.00 —Grading Grading 6/5/2025 7/30/2025 5.00 40.0 —Building Construction Building Construction 8/28/2025 1/13/2027 5.00 360 —Paving Paving 7/31/2025 8/27/2025 5.00 20.0 —Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/11/2025 1/27/2027 5.00 360 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorSite Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
79 / 92
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load FactorSite Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
80 / 92
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle MixSite Preparation — — — —Site Preparation Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading — — — —Grading Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 7.50 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction — — — —Building Construction Worker 14.7 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 2.55 8.40 HHDT,MHDTBuilding Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
81 / 92
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating — — — —Architectural Coating Worker 2.94 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTArchitectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle MixSite Preparation — — — —Site Preparation Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTSite Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTSite Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDTGrading — — — —Grading Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTGrading Hauling 7.50 20.0 HHDTGrading Onsite truck — — HHDTBuilding Construction — — — —Building Construction Worker 14.7 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Building Construction Vendor 2.55 8.40 HHDT,MHDT 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
82 / 92
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDTPaving— — — —Paving Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTPaving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTPaving Onsite truck — — HHDTArchitectural Coating — — — —Architectural Coating Worker 2.94 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDTArchitectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDTArchitectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control StrategiesNon-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 AreaCoated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior AreaCoated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 82,075 27,358 4,748 1,583 680

5.6. Dust Mitigation5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres)Site Preparation — — 1.88 0.00 — 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
83 / 92
Grading 2,400 — 40.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control StrategiesNon-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres) % AsphaltCondo/Townhouse — 0%Medical Office Building 0.00 0%Parking Lot 0.13 100%Apartments Low Rise — 0%Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.13 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions FactorskWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.0052026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.0052027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearCondo/Townhouse 117 130 100 42,565 1,326 1,475 1,138 482,059Medical OfficeBuilding 110 27.1 4.49 30,364 1,221 301 49.8 336,494
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
84 / 92
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments LowRise

22.0 24.4 18.8 7,981 249 277 213 90,386
Other AsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/YearCondo/Townhouse 117 130 100 42,565 1,326 1,475 1,138 482,059Medical OfficeBuilding 110 27.1 4.49 30,364 1,221 301 49.8 336,494
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Apartments LowRise

22.0 24.4 18.8 7,981 249 277 213 90,386
Other AsphaltSurfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources5.10.1. Hearths5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)Condo/Townhouse —Wood Fireplaces 0Gas Fireplaces 0Propane Fireplaces 0Electric Fireplaces 0No Fireplaces 16 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
85 / 92
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Pellet Wood Stoves 0Apartments Low Rise —Wood Fireplaces 0Gas Fireplaces 0Propane Fireplaces 0Electric Fireplaces 0No Fireplaces 3Conventional Wood Stoves 0Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)Condo/Townhouse —Wood Fireplaces 0Gas Fireplaces 0Propane Fireplaces 0Electric Fireplaces 0No Fireplaces 16Conventional Wood Stoves 0Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Pellet Wood Stoves 0 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
86 / 92
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0Gas Fireplaces 0Propane Fireplaces 0Electric Fireplaces 0No Fireplaces 3Conventional Wood Stoves 0Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
82075.275 27,358 4,748 1,583 680

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit ValueSnow Days day/yr 0.00Summer Days day/yr 180 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
87 / 92

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption5.11.1. UnmitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Condo/Townhouse 68,392 204 0.0330 0.0040 467,593Medical Office Building 66,999 204 0.0330 0.0040 75,170Parking Lot 4,961 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00Apartments Low Rise 11,251 204 0.0330 0.0040 59,878Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. MitigatedElectricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)Condo/Townhouse 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 467,593Medical Office Building 66,999 204 0.0330 0.0040 75,170Parking Lot 4,961 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00Apartments Low Rise 11,205 204 0.0330 0.0040 59,878Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Condo/Townhouse 580,262 56,762Medical Office Building 397,146 65,932Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
88 / 92
Apartments Low Rise 108,799 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)Condo/Townhouse 580,262 56,762Medical Office Building 397,146 65,932Parking Lot 0.00 0.00Apartments Low Rise 108,799 0.00Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Condo/Townhouse 11.8 —Medical Office Building 34.2 —Parking Lot 0.00 —Apartments Low Rise 2.31 —Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)Condo/Townhouse 11.8 —Medical Office Building 34.2 —Parking Lot 0.00 — 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
89 / 92
Apartments Low Rise 2.31 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedCondo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times ServicedCondo/Townhouse Average room A/C & Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Medical Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.45 0.60 0.00 1.00
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
90 / 92
Medical Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/Cand heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
91 / 92

5.18. Vegetation5.18.1. Land Use Change5.18.1.1. 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 Type5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration5.18.2.1. 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) 570 Crespi Drive Custom Report, 7/8/2024
92 / 92

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen JustificationLand Use Changes made based on project-specific information. It should be noted that the low-rise apartment acreage and landscaping are reflected in commercial land use due to being a mixed-use building.On-site parking has 15 spaces under the parking lot category, and the improvements in Parcel 2 areincluded under the Other Asphalt Surfaces category.

Construction: Construction Phases Changes made based on applicant-provided information. Demolition stage not required. Based on typical construction practices, architectural coating assumed to start two weeks after the start ofbuilding construction and last for the same number of days.

Operations: Hearths Natural gas hearths removed due to City prohibition for residential structures.

AERMOD Model Options
Model Options
Pathway Keyword Description Value
CO TITLEONE Project title 1 Crespi Drive Project Construction Health Risk Assessment CO TITLETWO Project title 2
CO MODELOPT Model options DFAULT,CONC,NODRYDPLT,NOWETDPLT CO AVERTIME Averaging times 1,24,ANNUAL
CO URBANOPT Urban options
CO POLLUTID Pollutant ID PM25 H1H
CO HALFLIFE Half life
CO DCAYCOEF Decay coefficient
CO FLAGPOLE Flagpole receptor heights 1.8
CO RUNORNOT Run or Not RUN
CO EVENTFIL Event file F
CO SAVEFILE Save file F
CO INITFILE Initialization file
CO MULTYEAR Multiple year option N/A
CO DEBUGOPT Debug options N/A
CO ERRORFIL Error file F
SO ELEVUNIT Elevation units METERS
SO EMISUNIT Emission units N/A
RE ELEVUNIT Elevation units METERS
ME SURFFILE Surface met file I:\Projects\Active\Pacifica\570 Crespi Drive\Technical Reports\AQ\HRA\AERMOD\San Francisco International.SFC
ME PROFFILE Profile met file I:\Projects\Active\Pacifica\570 Crespi Drive\Technical Reports\AQ\HRA\AERMOD\San Francisco International.PFL
ME SURFDATA Surf met data info. 23234 2009
ME UAIRDATA U-Air met data info. 23230 2009
ME SITEDATA On-site met data info.

ME PROFBASE Elev. above MSL 2.4
ME STARTEND Start-end met dates
ME WDROTATE Wind dir. rot. adjust.

ME WINDCATS Wind speed cat. max.

ME SCIMBYHR SCIM sample params
EV DAYTABLE Print summary opt. N/A
OU EVENTOUT Output info. level N/A
Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 1 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/Breeze/AERMOD/20240708115015/ReportsTemp.htm 7/8/2024 Source Parameter Tables
OU DAYTABLE Print summary opt.

All Sources
Source ID /
Pollutant ID Source Type Description UTM Elev. Emiss. Rate Emiss. Units Release
Height
East (m) North (m) (m) (m)
29R3K7E1 VOLUME Construction Equip 544210.9 4161358.8 0 0.0015941 (g/s) 5 Volume Sources
Source ID /
Pollutant ID Description
UTM Elev. Emiss. Rate Release
Height
Init. Lat.

Dim.

Init. Vert.

Dim.

East (m) North (m) (m) (g/s) (m) (m) (m)
29R3K7E1 Construction Equip 544210.9 4161358.8 0 0.0015941 5 29.59 1 Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 2 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/Breeze/AERMOD/20240708115015/ReportsTemp.htm 7/8/2024

I I I I I I I I
BREEZE AERMOD Model Results
Max. Annual ( 5 YEARS) Results of Pollutant: PM25 (ug/m**3) Group ID High Avg. Conc.

UTM Elev. Hill Ht. Flag Ht.

Rec. Type Grid ID
East (m) North (m) (m) (m) (m)
ALL 1ST 0.01595 544313.30 4161379.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
2ND 0.01584 544308.30 4161389.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
3RD 0.01528 544313.30 4161384.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
4TH 0.01520 544318.30 4161374.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
5TH 0.01504 544167.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
6TH 0.01498 544308.30 4161394.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
7TH 0.01466 544318.30 4161379.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
8TH 0.01457 544313.30 4161389.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
9TH 0.01455 544177.10 4161250.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
10TH 0.01455 544162.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
Highest Results of Pollutant: PM25
Avg.

Per.

Grp
ID High Type Val Units
Date UTM Elev.

Hill
Ht.

Flag
Ht. Rec.

Type
Grid
ID
YYMMDDHH East (m)
North
(m) (m) (m) (m)
1-HR ALL 1ST Avg.

Conc. 1.92131 ug/m**3 09011618 544167.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC Summary of Total Messages
# Message Type
0 Fatal Error Message(s)
4 Warning Message(s)
6306 Informational Message(s)
43872 Hours Were Processed
5804 Calm Hours Identified
502 Missing Hours Identified ( 1.14 Percent)
Error & Warning Messages
Msg. Type Pathway Ref. # Description
WARNING CO W276 Special proc for 1h-NO2/SO2 24hPM25 NAAQS disabled PM25 H1H WARNING CO W363 Multiyr 24h/Ann PM25 processing not applicable for PM25 H1H Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 1 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/Breeze/AERMOD/20240708115015/ReportsTemp.htm 7/8/2024 I I I= I I
www.breeze-software.com
WARNING OU W565 Possible Conflict With Dynamically Allocated FUNIT PLOTFILE WARNING MX W481 Data Remaining After End of Year. Number of Hours= 48 Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 2 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/Breeze/AERMOD/20240708115015/ReportsTemp.htm 7/8/2024 *HARP - HRACalc v22118 7/8/2024 11:55:57 AM - Cancer Risk - Input File: C:\Users\jfahrney\Desktop\HARP Results\570 Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC RISK_SUM SCENARIO DETAILS INH_RISK SOIL_RISK DERMAL_RISK MMILK_RISK WATER_RISK FISH_RISK CROP_RISK BEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISK PIG_RISK CHICKEN_RISK EGG_RISK 1ST_DRIVER 2ND_DRIVER PASTURE_CONC FISH_CONC WATER_CONC 1 9901 DieselExhPM 0.01595 4.80E-06 1.75YrCancerHighEnd_Inh_FAH16to70 * 4.80E-06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NA NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 *HARP - HRACalc v22118 7/8/2024 11:55:57 AM - Chronic Risk - Input File: C:\Users\jfahrney\Desktop\HARP Results\570 Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETH ENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL DETAILS INH_CONC SOIL_DOSE DERMAL_DOSE MMILK_DOSE WATER_DOSE FISH_DOSE CROP_DOSE BEEF_DOSE DAIRY_DOSE PIG_DOSE CHICKEN_DOSE EGG_DOSE 1ST_DRIVER 2ND_DRIVER 3RD_DRIVER PASTURE_CONC FISH_CONC WATER_CONC 1 9901 DieselExhPM 0.016 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh ######## ######## ######## ######## ######## 0.00E+00 ####### ######## ######## 0.00E+00 ######## ######## ######## 0.00E+00 * 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 INHALATION NA NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 *HARP - HRACalc v22118 7/8/2024 11:55:57 AM - Acute Risk - Input File: C:\Users\jfahrney\Desktop\HARP Results\570 Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY GILV REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETH ENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL 1 9901 DieselExhPM 1.92131 NonCancerAcute 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Appendix B
Geotechnical Investigation and
Response to Geotechnical Investigation Peer Review
GEOTECH�ICAL l'.'/VESTIGATION

FOR PROPOSED
�EW TO\VNHOlTSE COMPLEX
at the
Crespi Drive Property
570 Crespi Dri,I!
Pat.:ifica. California
Rt'port Prepared for:
'.\Ir. Brendan '.\iurphy
Report Prepared hy:

Geof orensics, Inc.

Januaf) 2016




  

][n kXjQ[Nn:]VYn\OW[IIdP\On
ó~yÊēȱģżƖůǕŽƧȱĔǁžȔŒ¿ȱĘƸȱ ǵŏǂȱČſȍÀȱčĆȱYñ|ç
ę9
þȱìèô{ðȱøȱ
ĥųƹƯŒÿȱ¸öå»ȱX|YËXX~YȱĚįȨĀȱ¹}æ¼ȱ}ùyÌêûúüȱ
Ğ1
BĿȱõÁȱíãé÷ȱ
ġǎÒȱĊ¤
IŎȱğǣ6$ȱ
ĤÓĢÔȱċȥȱïäzȱ

ȱ-
ÕȱĎćȱýòxzȱ
r‰ƒ
[Ȁąȱ
ĕ ¨ȱĠǃÖȱȒǥ&$āȱ

`In ^QnaRlJn3b]^Ign
n
cKn ^SndTmJn
3FGRMGF
n
FZWL]fUFn

1> -%'n&.B;>!
?"1,n17n
48252<n-Cn?1D01@;n1)6'En
/n
1*+9
!(n A#'$-
n
ĝ
ȱ
3k1
Ņ
ȱ t9!”ȱ $§ȱ RcǏƐȰn)
ȱ Ȝȱ '0ȱ ƿ
ťǠ
ȱ ȱ BǚŠ
ȱ d
ȱ «):=ȱ .ȱ .a
ȱ
ū
2Ż—
ȱ

ƓQ*ȱ DŽȱŐ
-ȱ ĭ¬ȱ b
ȱ ;h2­ƀ>
ȱ řȱ o7
ȱ k ?őȱ : §s
R,×ȱ ‚’Ƣȱ kKǦȱ
OƬľ
@ȱ ȁaȱ
LJ˜Ȃ9
ȱ ȝȱ ƨdzȎǐȱ
ȱ 
ǭ
ȱ ķȱ +
ȱ
ưVAȱ h³Ǒȱ  *
9
,ȱ ‡"ȱ
DžņƺƮ
fʼnƁLƱmȱ Ŧ
ȱ Ƕ&ȱ C
ǯGŲȱĸȱ 3ȇ©\ȃ*žȱ K_ȱȊ5ȱ 
>Œ4ȱ f^Ȟȱ ShȤȱ2› Ȧȱ gȱ

œ
%* ȱŃȏƗ•ŸŬØȱ
=SiJnJhHeW_iR][n
ħ8ȱA‰Ɣ

ȱd!
ȱ9ȱȱdž„oƂs
<ȩȱ<
ȕ
<ȱ
Š­Ļ´;ˆ·Í
(ǀ4ȱ ǒ2
Ƙȱe\/"ȱ
ȱǷ'
ȱ
W°cȱCȱ_ȱď+FP:ȱ
Ė©dȖ
ȱº QȱR“ȱ
ȧ™
/ȱ
Ǹ=ȱ't
ȱȱ€–ȓȱ ƙȱ Ùȱ ě>¥ȱ rǤ@DȱŚȱC
ǰ
Ǟ.–ȱƑȱȌOȱ
¡ªȱ Sȱ
)Oȱ
mO´
ȱT‘ ǹȱq(ȱj
ƾj5Ǩ$ȱš%
ȱ=MV”Úȱ ƒ(ȱjLJDǩȬȱƃ
ȱiȑ
Ŋ"ȱȪȱȱ
>

%G šȱ)ƚJȱǺȱVŸȱ
ŀǻÂȱ .7œȱ Ħ‹:Ţ3 ȱ ĐL›
*pȭȱ đ

Mȱ pȱ p'ȱ #/Ãȱ ȗ
š¢ȱ )
Ů;
ȱ śĵ)uȱ l•
TGHȱ ȱ !ȱ«7ȱ
ǴWȄ(ȱ IJ
]ȱĒLj
£:ȱėljƄ0
ȱǼiȱȅŴ
ȱŸƻǪÛȱ
Ĩ`Eȱ@ƅǽ
ȱƆ,ȱ%³
Ǚ

!e·ȱ
Š£Ƈ
CȱȫȱZȱIÎm-ǮÄȱtƼÏŪŘȱNJEƈIŇ
ȱ,*!²ȱi=ȱS8
ȱƲǫ
ǡȱ
ȱ
Ŝȱ’
ȱ-âȱ ĩ`
ȱ Ɖȱ
ȱȈQij
`
"ȱ†
ȱ Sȱ°b
ȱ
Ǭ#
-ȱ \Ǣ
ȱŝȱUŵȱ 8A
Üȱ ‚'ȱȟ
ȱ 6Bȱ
ţƽ
ȱǜȱ ǧFȱZȱ
ȱ
¦#ƛȱ 3ȱM5AÅȱ#źeȱ¬'ȱŭļ 
ȱ“łȱĮȱ
ž[
Ŕ/ȱ?ńНя¥ŋȱŤ¨wȱ Ĉȱ

[l

ȱ4ǟȘ
# $ȱƜ
4Pȱŧȱ.a
ȱN5ȱȱUŶȱ
Ĵ
Ýȱ
Ī&ȱǖWƶ"ȱǘş ‹EȱGgȱT&ȱ@U
ȱ0Ɗ
—!uȱ&„AȱĹȱș¦ ;Ʀȱ
J®ƣȱ<¢ȱȢȱ®Ƞl
ȱoc
ȱ#@!ȱvŁȱ&KȡƷȱ
Ƴȱ €ƋȐ+
ȱî½Þȱ ĉ-ȱqŹ
ȱ?ƌ¯ÆȱV7
ȱŰMȱ†H
LȱƝ¡
ȱ ŽD
/ƞ$ȱ]ȣȱQµˆ"DZȱ¯8ȱ¶
Twȱ ǝň
ȱ¤
nȱ
+ĺEȱŨƩȱƟ^ȚƠȱȱ{xĂȱëȱ vŷ+ƍȮf± <ă0Fª2 HÇȱĜĄĬ¾ßȱ
ī65ȱűǗKƴ"
ȱ1ǔBƵ4ȱ/7ȱNjŕƎ]Ŗ=%Dȱ
ȱs
Ȇ1
ȱ¶˜n(ȱȱ0İ


ȉ$ȱ_ȱƪƤȱ.ȱƫŗŌœȱ?™ȯ
ōȱ²‘FȱĶȱ
?8Nr,Èȱ
ƭ
>Wȱ ,ZHȱ ȱ ;Ǔȱ ±+
Éȱ 
ȱ 0ĽBȱ ȋnjȱ J Uțȱ ơ‡!ȱ 1
ȱ ŽǛ

àȱ ƒ6
Nȱ Əȱ ȱ
3I%ǍǾȱµıƥƕ#uȱ
NDzPȱq(^ȱũgǿȱŞȱRb
ȱ6Páȱ
S
S
s
s s
!i
s
\' s
\'
s
s s
File: 2152-+ 7
January 5. 2016
Proposed Const111ction
We understand that the current derelopment for the site proposes the demolition of the existing residence. and the subsequent construction of a ne\\ to,rnhouse complex and a commercial building \\·ith upper le,·el li,·ing space. The structures are to be of corwentional. \\"Ood-framed construction.

New fotmdation loads are expected to be typical for these types of structures (i.e. light).

Excavation "ork at the site is expected to be limited to era\\ !space and foundation excarntions. No significant fi II placement is anticipated as part of this \\ ork. No significant retaining walls are anticipated for this scope of work. No basements are planned for the IO\\llhouses or commercial building.

JNVESTIGA TION
Scope and Purpose
The purpose of our im·estigation ,ms to determine the nature of the subsurface soil conditions so that we could pro,·ide geotechmcal recommendations for the construction of the proposed ne\\ to,rnhouse complex and commercial building. In order to achie,·e this purpose. we hare performed the following scope of\\ ork:

I - ,·isited the property to obsen e the geotechnical setting of the area to be de,eloped:
1 - reriewed rele,·ru1t published geotechnical maps;
3 - drilled three borings near the location of the proposed improrements:
-+ - performed laboratory testing on collected soil samples:
5 - assessed the collected information ru1d prepared this report.

The findings of these" ork items are discussed in the folio" ing sections or this report.

Site Observations
We visited the site on December 8. 2015 to obserYe the geotechnically relerrull site conditions.

During our ,·isit. we noted the following condi11ons:

A - The existing house appears to be supported by a perimeter concrete footmg "ith isolated interior wooden posts resting on concrete pedestals. The foundation system appeared to be in good condition. with no major cracks (as obsen·ed from the exterior) B - We obserYed hairline to ¼ mch wide cracks in the concrete of the \\alk,,ays and the dn,eway.

C - The exterior house walls \\ ere CO\ ered "ith wood siding. The "ood siding "alls "ere generally in a state of disrepair.
.,
File: 2152➔ 7
January 5. 20 I 6
D - we consider the dramage arOLmd the house to be poor. The ground surface near the house. and o, er much of the lot. is llat without sufficient slope away from the house to adequately carry water away from the house. ·Trapped .. planters and lo\\ areas also e-.:1st near the house foundations. Additionally. there are no roof downspouts. as water is al lo,, ed to sheet flo,,· onto the ground surface near the house foundations. Water which is discharged. collected. or trapped by the house foundations may seep 11110 the crawlspace.

E - We ,,·ould characterize the drainage o, er the majority lot to be sheet flo" to the "est.

Geologic Map Review
We re,·ie\\·ed the Geology <�lrhe Onshore Par, uf .',an J\k11eo Cu11111y. Cal{ furnia: Derivedfiwn 1he
Digt1al Database Open-Frie 98-137. b�· Earl E. Brabb. R.W. Graymer. and D L. Jones (1998). The rele, ai1t portion of the Brabb. Gray mer. and Jones map has been reproduced in Figure 3.

The Brabb. Graymer. and Jones map indicate that the site 1s w1derlain by Allu,·ial Fan and Flu,·ial Deposits (map symbol .. Qhaf') ai1d Artificial Fill (map symbol . . af').

Brabb. Graymer. and Jones describe Allll\ ial Fan and Flunal Deposits as consisting of .. brown or tan. medium dense to dense. grm ell�· sand or sandy grm el that generally grades up,,·ard to sand�· or silty cla�. Near the distal fan edges. the llll\ ial deposits are t�·picall�· brO\rn. medium dense sand that fines upward to sandy or silty cla�·:·
Artilicial Fill has been descnbed as consisting of ··Joose to ,·ery "ell consolidated gra, el. sand. silt. clay. rock fragments. organic mat1er. and man-made debris in rarious combinations. Thickness is rnriable and may exceed 30 meters in some places Some is compacted and quite tirm. but Iii! made before I 965 is nearly e,·e0·" here not compacted and consists simply of dumped materials:· Our subsurface exploration (see belo,q encountered silt. clay. sand. and organic materials" hich \\'e judged to be consistent ,, ith the Artificial Fill mapping The acti,·e San Gregorio Fault is mapped approximate!� 2.0 miles (3.2 km) southwest of the site Subsurface Explorntion
On December 8. 2015 \\e drilled three borings at the sue at the locations sho\\11 on Figure➔. The borings \\ere drilled using a Mobile B-2-+ truck-mounted drilling rig equipped "·ith -+.0 inch diameter. helical night augers. Logs of the soils encountered during drilling record our obsen ations of the cuttings trarnling up the augers and of relati, ely undisturbed samples collected from the base of the adrnncing holes. The final boring logs are based upon the field logs with occasional modifications made upon further laborato0· examinnt1ons of the recO\ ered samples and laboratory test results. The final logs are a11ached in Appendix A 3 File: 2152-l 7
January 5. 20 I 6
The relati\'ely undisturbed samples \\'ere obtained b~- dri,·ing a 3.0 inch (outer diameter) Modified California Sampler and a Standard Penetration Sampler (as noted on logs) into the base of the adrnncing hole by repeated blo\\'s from a 1-l0 pound hanuner lifted 30 inches. On the logs. the number of blo\\ s required to dri,·e the sampler the final 12 inches of the 18 inch dri, e. ha\'e been recorded as the Bio\\· Counts. These blows ha\'e not been adjusted to renect equi\ alent blo\\'s of any other type of sampler or hammer. or to accow1t for the different samplers used.

Subsmface Conditions
Boring I first penetrated ➔ feet of loose sand. This "as underlain by cla~ ,, ith sand to a depth of

6.5 feet. Belo\\' this ,ms soft to firm silt with an organic smell to 12.5 feet. At 12.5 feet. the boring encou111ered stiff silty clay "ith \'arying amounts of organics down to the terminated boring depth of 17.5 feet.

Borings 2 and 3 both penetrated 6 feet of loose to medium dense silty sand o, er soft silt with organics. This "as underlain by stiff to \'ery stiff silty cla~ "ith , arying amounts of sand and rock fragments down to the terminated boring depths or 23.5 and 29.S feet.

Please refer to Appendix A for a more detailed description of each boring.

Initially. ground\\'ater \\'as encountered at depths of 16 feet (Boring 1). 12.5 feet (Boring 2). and at I I feet (Boring 3) during the drilling of the holes. In Boring I. the le, el of the " ater rose to a depth of 13 feet after 3 hours. In Boring 2. the le\'el of the" ater rose to 12 feet after I 5 hours. Ho\\ e,·er. during periods of hea, y rain or late in the ,, inter. ground\\ ater seepage ma~ exist at e, en shallo" er depths.

Laborato,y Testing
The relati\'ely undisturbed samples collected during the drilling process \\ere returned to the laboratory for testing of engineering propenies. In the lab. selected soil samples were tested for moisture content. density. plasticity. and consolidation. The results of the laboratory tests are attached to this repon in Appendix B.

Organic Content Testing conducted on a sample of the site soils tSample 2-~ if., 9 feet) indicated that 86. 7 percent of the --soir· al this depth consists of organic mailer Due to the soils ha,·ing greater than 50 percent organic matter. the testmg lab and our office describe the soil as peat.

Plasticity Index (Pl) testing performed on a sample of the site near surface materials (the sample of the peat at 9 feet) produced a PI result of 21 o. This testing sho" ed that the peat has a ,·ery high liquid limit. "hich .led to the high plasticity index of 210. Typically. a plasticity index of greater than about 30 correlates to a highly expansi,·e soil. Ho\\eYer. peat has a tendency to produce unusual lest results. Therefore. this number does not necessarily indicate that the peat is highl~- expans1, e.

ŰÂ+Şҭ ŇŁҭĚňŏœҭ
ƀNj€ ΅ѿҭŐĝҭ ʼnķłőҭ
Ƌ ҭ Ū
ÌωQI
m0ʮKҭ ЅȠϊ‹ҭ 
̰
ћ
Іȡnҭ Q̱ҭ •ҭ ãƦ̛8zҭ ɞҭЇ¸ҭ Hìҭ ϋʯzόҭ ŒDҭ ύnj̨T!ҭ ͕²ҭЈ¹ҭ ͩtǍЉҭ –Œҭ řҭ ŭҭЊĎҭ ˶€>ʰ
1ЋȢ3ҭ ЌʑƧ
ҭ.»oҭ
ʱ{ҭDƨƔҭ%ҭ9ΆȎ6Íώ̂ʲ§ЍʳLҭ ͪƒϏѯҭ
³ҭb;
ќЎҭ ̃ҭĸĹҭ Uϐɟҭѷºʴ<ʒҭ ʵҭ99ƒ6Ѿ˻%?ÅҀҭ íʓȣҭ
—}Ȥҭcϑҭ ÷EҭƄƕ·hΈȏp̲ҭڄ
çϒ$„@ҭ
ѝΉΊMЏ̄ҁҭÚ΋­ϓϔʶÔɾҭ6ÎҭАØ8ҭ6ɠҭБ5Aҭϕ
ҭ Ğҭ ƌvΌɴ΍ğҭ đĒҦoҭǵ͖͔3

ҭ
ZʔAҭўÛͫqΎҭY
ʷ̅
ҭВRҭǩҭ̳
Ώd!+ҭ ҫҭj
̴Šʸ¨e‹ȥȐĠҭ


 
!$ 2%
--%$!4

 


ŦgЂȦ¨ҭ/ͬ
̵ҭ
ùΐҭxÏѱî
* #͗ÐġҭѸȧҭǪIHƛĈ
ҭ#ʕ
ҭ
ʖҭTδÜ

C(ҭʹÊT"Ɩ)Ép̶.ϖҭ
1Òҭiҭ
&ɱ!҂ҭk
,
"Ѭj
r(’ҭ
Ÿ®7ҭ)ǶʗN£ ҭ©ȨƜĉr
ͭÊ,[ҭ͘uҭ5ȩҭϗx4ҭʺϘҭ̷ïΑ++
ҭ2҃ҭГʘҭÛÞ
ÑǷҭ7ɡҭƩҭƪ҄†ҭɢҭ»
µD!҅ҭ¶ǎ×ʻҭϙҭ
(ͮȪƫðďҭДÁ:Еҭ
Ϛҭ ʙʼ*¼J҆ҭ

}V"?YÃ2̆
Ģҭ ƍF4߯ɵΒȫģҭ
ñҭ `aąҭ ¢ҭ OsǸȬϛägΓ҇ҭ 
ҭ /HHҡBҭ ҭ ´^ÐȑcSKҭϜ҈
rҭ
ѹ5ʽkʚҭ mȭΔʾƗqåҭ
Жϝҭ ϞúV8ρҭ ɼ̜ҭ З¼ҭ
Ȯȯ9ҭ εijҭ ËQàȰҭ \Ƭǫ̇
ҭ ϟ͙ʿJϠҭ Ǭ̸4žИ5ҭ
G@ҭ ͯt:öҭ
àҭ $Ѓpҭ —ҭ ϡЙɪɫҭ
ɶû̹ªƭКˀ̺ҭ Ϣ҉ϣЛ~ҭ Ʈ̻
ҭ 0ǹǺȱ8\ҭ è͚ҭ ͛ēҧ°ΕǏƁſҭ ˁ!їҭ ͜ɣҭ МGҭ ϤŒζāǻђѭȲ’ҭWWҭ ‡ǼtÍȒҭ 0ҭ 0Нҭ ϥÅ0ǭҭ ϦùͰ8ςȳmҭ ǮҊҭ
Vҭ ɷѰȓ О˂
-ҭ ȴ̈ȵ̝ȶMљYҭ ǯȷҭ ^
)Ȕҭ ͝ҭ ßȸfʛҭ ПwCҭ }Ζ®ҭ РƯ;̉)ҭ ̞ưСB"˃f̊ҭ %äҭ Тʜ±ҭ ;±Yòҭ ƱzУν ó˄Ѳҭ čƝĊ˅§ˆÒɿҭ ϧ
ѓєÉOФϨĐĤҭ ͞Ĵҭ Æ4̟ƲХˇƘIҋ“ҭ &ҭ Ĕξ̠ҭ bҌҭ 2ҭ /#y{ˈҢ ҭ ͒3Ηҭ Ƴҭ ]ҭ 1ǰҭ yɤҭ
ЦˉJЧˊOʀ ˋϩ ƴǽǾȹͱì˜DZJĥҭ
Ǝ o Θ
=
̮
̼(gШˌ
̽
ҭ ˍPҭ Щ x
ҭΙȺÜRσҭ æʝ؏+
ҭ DzȻ Ó=†ÝRηǐЪȼ

ÔЫ7ҭ#½Ƚҭ
Є
ʁ̾ Õ3ҭ ¤Kæòl
7-ҭɥҭ
Fҭ
Ͳˆ
Vçȕҭ̿ƞƟҨҭЬÙƠà
‘ҭ¥͟~‚|Ⱦѻ Ÿ
ҭk̯ҭ Κy ̚ iüˎ(ˏ-*Ħҭ
S


ƏʞҭʂΛ&Μҭ  ҭ űΝǝÃèǿҭ ŧ'ҍҭ Ţ
•ҭ ҭ

ʃOːң
3ҭ 2Ҏҭ Ź!
µˑ
Эҭ ƵÖnҭ ˒é{
ʄôéҭ¡ҭ Nҭ
ɦҭ.Gҭ
̡͠ϪЮҭ –jЯ˓ѳȿҭ ãɀ˔ϫ̭Ȁҭ Ξʅ˕́͡Ϭҭ ˖͂ҭ аGҭ Ɠ-˗õɁ«ҭ öƶ̋ɂϭħҭ ɃĕҩɄˆǚ̌ҭ ̢ǘ˼Οҭ ɬúIøҭ Ҥ̓ɅϮҭ ͳƷҭ ϯҭ бwXͦûʆ¾ҭ õºɆҭ ŨƸҬҥ ť?ƹҭ ˘̈́ҭ ƺҭ Ì
τ̍ņơΠϰвҭ Ȗ˙Ρȁг˚S-ҭ ƢƣĜȂ¿ҭ ʟƻƙɇҭ ʹWͧ«Āȃsªҭ :͵ͶWSѼ˛̣ƼŽ°̎ҏҭ ŃŊҭ Ɉƽυ¿΀/ƾ˽ɉϱҭ ͷɊWҭ ȄɋͅдýWҐҭ ϲκ
͆ʇҭɌ͇џʈ5ҭе
ҭ
ƿÿ
­ҭϳжƒþȅ‹Ѡ‰Ǒ̏ҭ ¬ǒ̩ǀʉɍĨҭ ƐÀҭ ɩǓ_зҭ Ȇe_ҭ Ó·ҭϴü¤ʠҭɎ™΢иE΁^ǁ˾ɏϵҭǠɐҭ ͸˜φҭ ͢²ҭ.½@ҭ ǔ,ҭ Š€>á@b϶ҭ Ų%ѡ̐ҭ ґϷй̤ҭ ҭ ~ǛͣΣҭ ˜ɽҭ ˝Pҭ кʡҭ ɑ1ψÀćҭ Τ$ϸ[ҭ D1лҭ ѽ[Ñ>Ϲҭ ɸXҭ '.ҭ ɒ¡îҭ ŔĺĻҭ ̪˷Ϻҭ Kʊҭ Ѻм
οҭ ūf̗˸´"͓˞ǂҭ ƑʢAҭ Ǟҭ ţ() åҭ ųѢнҭ Ғ
ҭ Ëҭ ˟N<̘ѣ
ҭ #ʣҭ Öҭ Ť
†ǃϻ“ҭ  ҭ ź*μRĖҭ
ŽDŽғėπΥȗĘҭŬ'ÆDžѴ‰Ǧҭ ŴdžѤ|óҭƚÏêĩҭǟȘҭо
‡ҭɭÿ̑пĪҭ
ŮѥΦÄ͈ʋҭ ńŚśļīҭ рʤҭ ĬƊĭҭ Ż
ͤ*ˠȇ:|ҭ ‘ˆҔҕҭ <ˡônҭ %ҭ Œŕҭ TXȈÕ]ҭ ‚Þ
h ;ŽĄҭ сF%Žҭ Ǖ×ҭ Ǥ¹΂‘ǜҭ ³ҭ Ɖ˹¦ тΧҭ ̫ǖʌPˢ
_(ҭŖęҭˣ̬˺̒ǡҭу
ҭ ÷vAҭ ŅŜҭ ŝҭƃ7̥dҭƅΨˤ#LJҭůǥv΃Ā&˿ҭ Ƥ”Ҫā̓©ҭ¦£$‰ҭMҭ
͉ҭ
uҭ.Eҭ ]Äѵҭ ɮ^̔фϼҭ ˥-ҭх ¯ҭ š͊ҭ ŵΩ,

ϽȉÙҭ ũ Җҭ Ɔʍ˦6,ҭ ˧Mҭ ZÁBҭ ɹ̕Ç
ă˨͋ʎҭ ōĽҭ җɓǢ
Įҭ Ƈɔq,
Ҙįҭ ]ʥ˩ҭUá
hi
ҙҭ`”ċǧҭ
˪LȊX)Ǩ>ҭZҭ ŗľҭ ͹ɕâȋ
P
Ķҭ žêҭ šҭ Ϊ_јҭ uҭϾ
Ѧș˫?
ҭ
Nҭ ïʦҭ ƥČ
=ÂLцĄҭ
ɧҭ#¾ҭ ž&Қăǣ¬ҭ Ŷ›þ[ĵҭ A 2Ŏҭ ‚Ϋ<Løҭ
ͺθ
dz'Ǵˬ˭чқҭ ˮ
ҭϿ˯ÈÇҭ íњά˰¢$шɖȚҭЀͻBȌ˱ɳl›̙ҜҭщQҭъʧҭͼSы͌ьœ!ҭɺ‡ҭcҭœ·͍˲ѧțҭ Řҭs™λð¸΄ѨLj̀ɗҭ э
ҭ
lý„ҭÈ͎ʏҭ

ʨɘҭ ŸҭšÎȜέ'Šҭŷdюҭ2ҝҭяFҞҭ Ǘ"ҭŋĿŌŀİҭ
żήͥĂ͏ȝҭ ƈĂƂşѕѮιɝҭ ě ƒʩəҭ ̖ ¥́ҭ ɨҭ ̦ljUUɚȞҭ e=Z˳Ѷҭ ɯ/іҭ ί&ȍëҭ
ʪͨѩʐwҭ ѐʫҭ Šıҭ ë/*¶ҭ ñʬ'\ҭ \Eҭ
ͽё
͐
˴NJҭɻΰҭ;"˵̧Ǚâҟҭα$ͿѪβCҭȟѫɛҭҭɰ$ҭɲ4ҭ
͑ҭʭCҭÝγ
9ɜχҠҭ Ёҭ+
`aĆIJҭ
,
es e e
0 s
)
SAND RECO fMENDA TIONS
(
e
e W
e
I I
s s
s s s
e s s s
s e e
s s e s s
u s
8 s
A2
e
s e
s
5 File: 2152-P
January 5. 20 I (1
Ground Shaking - The subject slle is likel� to be subject to , ery strong to , iolent ground shakmg during its life span due to a major earthquake in one of the abo,·e-listed fault ,ones. Current (2ll 13) building code design may be folio,, ed by the structural engineer to minimi1.e damages due to seismic shaking. using the folio,, ing input parameters from the USGS Ja,a Ground !\•lotion Parameter Calculator based upon ASCE 7-10 design parameters:

Site Class - D SMs = 2.0(,5 SDs = 1.377 SD1 = o.889
Landsliding - We note that the subject site and the surrounding area are general!� le, el Therefore. the ha1.ard due to seismical!� -induced landsliding is. in our opinion. , e� lo\\ for the slle.

Liquefaction - Liquefacuon most common!� occurs durmg earthquake shaking 111 loose line sands and silty sands associated "ith a high ground "ater table. These conditions "ere demonstrated to be absent in the upper 11 feet of site materials. Although there are some loose sand deposits at the site. they are not saturated. and hence are unltkely to be subject to liquefaction. Studies ha,·e found that ,, hen these soils are co, ered by at least Io feet (3 meters) of non-liquefiable soils. the impacts of the liquefaction tend to be regional mo, ements. rather than more dramauc localiLed problems.

Although liquefaction is unlikely to ha, ea significant elTect on the subject property. the proposed rigid foundation should help to minimi1.e any mo,ements e, en further. Therefore. it is our opinion that the potenllal for any se, ere damages or collapse due to liquefaction at the site are , e�· lo\\.

Ground Subsidence - Ground subsidence ma� occur \\hen poorly consoltdated soils dens1fy as a result of earthquake shaking. Since the proposed building site 1s underlain at shallo,, depths b� resistant materials. the ha1.ard due to grow1d subsidence is. in our op1111on. considered to be lo\\ Lateral Spreading - Lateral spreading may occur "hen a weak layer of material. such as a sensiti,e silt or clay. loses its shear strength as a result of earthquake shakmg. O, erlying blocks of competent material may be translated laterally to\\ ards a free face. Free face conditions are not present proximate to the site. hence. the haLard due to lateral spreading is. in our opinion. considered to be lo,,.

Site Preparation and Grading
All debris resulting from the demoltt1on or e,1sting 1mpro, ements should be remo, ed from the site and may not be used as till. Any e,1st111g underground utiltt� lines to be abandoned should be remo, ed from within the proposed building em elope and their ends capped outside or the building em elope.

Any ,egetation and organically contaminated soils should be cleared from the building area. All holes resulting from remo, al of tree stumps and roots. or other buried objects. should be o, ere:\Ca, ated into firm materials and then back tilled and compacted" ith nati, e materials.

SM1 = 1.334
File: 2152-H
January 5. 20 I 6
The placement of fills at the site is expected to include: utility trench backfill. slab subgrnde materials. and finished drainage and landscaping grading. These and all other fills should be placed in conformance \\ith the follo"·ing guidelines:

Fills may use organic-free soils available at the site or import materials. Import soils should be free of construction debris or other deleterious materials and be non-expansire. A minimum of 3 Jays prior to the placeme/11 of any .frll. our <�{lice should he supplied with a 30 pound sample (approximate�,, a fi,11 5 gallon bucket) of any soil or haserock to be used a.\ .fill (ini.;luding nmive and import materials)for testing and approval.

All areas to recei, e fills should be stripped of organics and loose or soft near-surface soils Fills should be placed on le,el benches in lifts no greater than 6 mches thick (loose) and be compacted to at least 90 percent of their Ma.ximum Dry Density (MOD). as determined by ASTM D-1557 In pavement (concrete or asphalt) areas to recei,·e ,·ehicular traffic. all baserock materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of their MDD. Also. the upper 6 inches of soil subgrade beneath any pa,·ements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its MOD.

Vu less additional work is done lo stre11gthe11 cmtl de11sijj' the 11pper IO to 12 feet of site 111aterit1ls, tlte grcules slum/cl lltJI be increased more tlum 6 inches higher //,au existing site grades.

Otltenvise, excessive settleme111s of t/1e 111ulerlyi11g compressible stJi/s 11u�•1 occur. ({fill:; i11 excess ,if 6 i11che.\' are to be placed. our ,iffice should be co111ncteilforf11rther reco111111e111lntimu.

Temporary
. dry
-\\ eather. ,ertical e:-.cmations should remain stable for short periods of time to heights of 3 leet. All excarntions should be shored or sloped in accordance " 1th OSHA standards.

Cuts deeper than 11 feet may encounter ground,, ater and "ill require temporary (and perhaps permanent) de"·atering.

Permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2: I (H:V). Ho,,e, er. eren at this gradient. minor sloughing of slopes may still occur in the future. PositiYe drainage impro,·ements (e.g. drainage S\\"ales. catch basins. etc.) should be proYided to pre, ent \\'ater from tlo\\'ing o, er the tops of cut and/or fi II slopes.

Townhouse and/or Commercial Building Foundation - 1\lat Slab with Piers The to\\nhouse and/or commercial building foundations may be supported by a mat slab supported by drilled piers. heli:,; augers. or pipe piles founded in the deeper materials beneath the peat.

Dtilled Piers - Piers should penetrate a minimum of 25 feet belo\\' lo\\ est adjacent grade. The piers should hare a minimum diameter of 16 mches and be nominally reinforced \\'ith a mmimum of four #➔ bars vertically. Piers should be spaced a maximum of 15 feet center to center. and be spaced no closer than➔ diameters. center to center.

Holes g1·eater than 11 foet may encounter groundwater. The contractor should be prepared to trernmie the piers, d1ill and J>Our the piers, and/or case the 1>iel'S in the event of caving. 7 File: 215247
January 5, 2016
Actual pier depth, diameter, reinforcement. and spacing should be determined by the strnctural engineer based upon the following design criteria:

A friction value of 500 psf may be assumed to act on that portion of the pier below a depth of 12 feet. Lateral support may be assumed to be developed along the length of the pier below 12 feet, using a passive pressure of 350 pcf Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW). Passive resistance may be assumed to act over 1.5 projected pier diameters. Above 12 feet, no frictional or lateral support may be assumed. These design values may be increased 1/3 for transient loads (i.e. seismic and wind).

The upper 12 feet of the pier will experience down drag as the peat decomposes. We recommend that a down drag friction of 500 psf be used on the upper 11 feet of pier.

Even though piers are designed to derive their vertical resistance through skin friction. the bases of the piers holes should be clean and firm prior to setting steel and pouring concrete. If more than 6 inches of slough exists in the base of the pier holes after drilling, then the slough should be removed. If less than 6 inches of slough exists, the slough may be tamped to a stiff condition. Piers should not remain open for more than a few days prior to casting concrete. In the event of rain, shallow groundwater, or caving conditions it may be necessary to pour piers immediately.

All perimeter piers, and piers under load-bearing walls, should be connected by concrete grade beams. Perimeter grade beams should penetrate a minimum of 6 inches below crawlspace grade (unless a perimeter footing drain is installed to intercept water attempting to enter around the perimeter). Lnterior grade beams do not need to penetrate below grade. All other isolated floor suppo11s must also be pier supported. howe\"er, they do not need to be connected by grade beams.

All improvements connected directly to any pier supported structure, also need to be supported by piers. This includes, but is not limited to: porches, decks, entry stoops and columns, etc. If the designer does not wish to pier support these items. then care must be taken to structurally isolate them (with expansion joints, etc.) from the pier supported structure.

If the above recommendations are followed, total foundation settlements should be less than I inch, while differential settlements should be less than l;i inches.

Pipe Piles- Pipe piles may be used in lieu of drilled concrete piers. If used, they should be driven into the ground until the required capacity for structural loading and down drag are achieved by the driving equipment, and then filled with grout. Actual pile depth, pipe diameter, and spacing should be determined by the structural engineer However, we recommend the pipe piles should be driven a minimum of 25 feet below lowest adjacent grade.

Helical Piers - Helical piers (Chance Augers) consist of a solid metal shaft fitted with a metal plate (or series of plates) warped into a screw ihread on the tip of the lead shaft. The auger is screwed down into the ground until the required torque is achieved. indicating that adequate bearing pressures are also available. The helix then will accept vertical loads from the foundations and 8 File: 21 -2-H
January 5. 20 I 6
transmit them to bearing pressures on the plates at the tip of the augers. The design process of these augers is based upon proprietary information de,·eloped by the Chance Company. and the calculations and designs can be prepared based upon the information contained in other sections and figures in this report.

Floor - The IO\\nhouse or commercial building floors should consist of a mat slab sparming between support elements. The entire slab should be underlain by at least 6 inches of clean. crushed drain rock. The drain rock should be co\'ered by a moisture barrier which conforms to ASTM E l 7-r-97 (e.g. Stego Wrap or an appro\'ed equi,·alent). Perforated collector pipes should be embedded \\ithin the drain rock around the perimeter of the slab and at 20 foot spacing (one-\\ ay) under the slab to carry any ,rnter \\'hich gathers" ithin the drain rock to the drain discharge location.

The need for any sand o\'er the top of the vapor barrier should be determined by the slab designer or architect.

Alternative Townhouse and/or Commercial Building Foundation - Warne System Alternati\'ely, the new foundation system may consist or a series or interlocking grade beams which will create a rigid system to support a structurally spanning slab for the new 10\mhouse/commercial building. To prodde the most rigid system. it will be important that long. narro"· protrusions be minimized from the design in fa,·or of the most rectangular (ideally square) footprint geometry possible. It should be noted that use o[ a \\affie s~·stern may still result in differential settlements relati, e to the grades surrounding the townhouse complex or commercial building. resulting in ele,·ation differences across bui ldi.ng/garage entrances and thresholds. as " ·ell as an o, erall tilt to the building.

The grade beams should be a minimum of36 inches tall and be capable of spanning or cantilernring the follo\\·ing distances and amounts:

Settlements - 20 foot diameter area anywhere in the interior: 10 feet of lost support along the perimeter: and. 5 feet of lost support at any comer.

The moYements under the foundations must not result in a deflection of the fo undation grade beam system in excess of a ratio of l :360. To achie, e this rigidity. it is anticipated that fo undation grade beams "ill need to be on the order of 3 feet tall. a minimum of 18 inches ,Yide. and spaced al no more than 17 feet in any direction. Ideally. grade beams should be located under all first story interior walls so as to rnaximize the rigidity under these walls.

The grade beams will all need to bear on stiff soils as identified by our office in the field. Should localiLed areas of expansive soils be encountered. " ·e may direct the contractor to speciall~· treat those areas to eliminate localized uplift. Such directions may include: the use of mid fo rm materials in sub-slab areas. O\'er-excarntion. or other methodology deemed appropriate by our engineer.
9 File: 21524 7
January 5. 2016
The grade beam system may be designed for a bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be used. For resistance to lateral forces. the embedded faces of the grade beams may be assumed to de\'elop a passi,·e resistance of200 psf
Due to the presence of the peat layer, the total dead load across the building footpiint should not exceed 500 psf. If this value is exceeded, please contact our office for fui1he r recommendations.

Slabs-on-Grade
The to\\nhouse garag lo\\·er lerel noors and the commercial building noors should not consist of com·entional concrete slabs-on-grade. ho\\"erer. may consist of mat slabs supported by piers or waille foundat ion elements. The dri,·e,ray. any sidewalks or patios may consist of con\'entional concrete slabs-on-grade. though it should be expected that some post-construction shifiing of such slabs may occur. We ha,·e prodded guidelines to help reduce post-construction mo,·ements, howe,·er, it is nearly impossible to economically eliminate all shilling.

To help reduce cracking. we recommend slabs be a minimum of 5 inches th ick and be nominall~· reinforced \\"ith #-1 bars at I 8 inches on center. each \\"ay. Slabs which are thinner or more lightly reinforced may experience undesirable cosmetic cracking. Howerer. actual reinforcement and thickness should be determined by the structural engineer based upon anticipated usage and loading.

In large non-interior slabs (e.g. patios. garage. etc.). score joints should be placed at a ma-ximum of IO feet on center. In side\\"alks. score joints should be placed at a ma-xi mum of 5 feet on center. All slabs should be separated from adjacent impro\'ements (e.g. footings. porches. columns. etc.) "ith expansion joints. Interior floor slabs " -ill experience shrinkage cracking. These cosmetic cracks may be sealed with epo:-..~· or other measures specilied by the architect.

All interior slabs (including garage slab) should be underlain by -I inches of clean ¾ inch crushed drain rock. The drain rock should be corered by a , apor barrier \\'hich conforms to ASTM EI 745- 97 (e.g. Stego Wrap or an appro,·ed equirnlent). The architect or structural engineer should determine if sand is required o,·er the rnpor barrier.

Slabs \\"hich \\"ill be subject to light \'ehicular loads and through \\"hich moisture transmission is not a concern (e.g. dri\'e\\'ay) should be underlain by at least 6 inches of compacted baserock. in lieu of any sand and gravel. Exterior landscaping nat\\'ork (e.g. patios and side\\"alks) may be placed directly on proof-rolled soil subgrade materials (e.g. no granular subgrade). ho\\'e, er. they \\"ill be potential[~; subject to shifting and moisture transmission.

As stated previously, in pa,·ement (concrete or asphalt) areas to receiYe ,·ehicular traffic. all baserock materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of their MOD. Also. the upper 6 inches of natirn soil subgrade beneath any pavements should be compacted 10 at least 95 percent or its MOD.
10 File: 2152-H
January 5 . .20 I 6
The to\\11house garage/lower le, el slabs and commercial building slabs should be tied to the foundations to limit differential mo\'ements.

Drainage
Due to the Oat nature of the site. it ,, ill be imponant to pro, ide good drainage impro,ement · s at the propeny.

Surface Drainage - Adjacent to any buildings. the ground surface should slope at least 5 percent am1�- from the foundations "·ithin 5 feet of the perimeter. Impemous surfaces should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent a\\ay from the foundation.

Surface water should be directed away from all buildings into drainage s\\'ales. or into a surface drainage system (i.e. catch basins and a solid drain line). ·"Trapped·· planting areas should not be created next to any buildings "ithout providing means for drainage (i.e. area drains).

All roof ea\'es should be lined "·ith gutters. The dO\rnspouts ma>· be connected to solid drain lines. or may discharge onto pa\'ed surfaces which drain a\\ ay from the structure. The do\\nspouts may be connected to the same drain line as any catch basms. but must not connect to any perforated pipe drainage system. If splash blocks are prelerred. then a perimeter footing drain system !!!!ill be installed.

Footing Drain - Due to the potential for changes to surface drainage pro,·isions. it would be wise (though not required) to install a perimeter footing drain to 111tercept waler anempting to enter under the garage/Ooor slab. If a footing dram is not installed. some moisture transmission up through the slab ma� occur. Such penetration should not be detrimental to the performance of the structure. but can possibly cause humidity and mi Ide\\' problems \\ ithin the to\\nhouse and commercial building. or seepage up through the slab Doors.

The footing drain system if installed. should consist of a 12 inch ,, ide grarnl-filled trench. Jug at least I 2 111d1es below the eleva11011 of the adjacent slab .rnbgradc. The trench should be lined "ith a layer of filter fabric (Mirafi 1-tON or equinlent) to pre,·ent migration of silts and clays into the gravel. but still permit the flow of" ater. Then 1 to 2 inches of drain rock (clean crushed rock or pea gra,el) should be placed in the base or the lined trench. Next a perforated pipe (minimum 3 inch diameter) should be placed on top of the thin rock layer. The perforations in the pipe should be face down. The trench should then be backfilled \\ ith more rock lo "·ithin 6 inches of finished grade. The filter Ca bric shoul<l be wrapped O\'er the top of the rock. AboYe the filter fabric 6 inches of nati, e soils should be used to cap the drain If concrete slabs are to directly o,·erlay the drain. then the gravel should continue to the base of the slab. ,, ithout the 6 inch soil cap. This drain should not be connected to anv surface drainage s,·stem If a floor slab is used. an under-slab drain system may also be installed. consisting of a perforated collector pipes spread no more than .20 feet apart. embedded "ithin the sub-slab dram rock. to e, acuate any ,rnter which gathers \\ ithin the drain rock 11 File: 2152.i 7
January 5.2016
Drainage Discharge - The surface drain lines should discharge at least 15 feet a\\ay from the to,rnhouse and commercial building. preferably at the street. The discharge location(s) may need to be protected by energy dissipaters to reduce the potential for erosion. Care should be ta.ken not direct concentrated flows of water towards neighboring properties. This mayrequire the use of multiple discharge points.

The footing drain lines (if installed) should discharge independently from the surface drainage systems. A sump pump may be required for the footing drain discharge systems. The surface and subsurface drain systems should not be connected to one another.

Drainage Mate1ials - Drain lines should consist of hard-\\alled pipes (e.g. SDR 35 or Schedule -lO PVC). In areas "here rehicle load mg is not a possibilit�. SDR 38 or HDPE pipes may be used.

Corrugated. flexible pipes may not be used in any drain system installed at the property.

Surface drain lines (e.g. do\\ nspouts. area drains. etc ) should be laid \\'ith a minimum 2 percent gradient ( ¼ inch of fall per foot of pipe). Any subsurface drain systems (e.g. footing drains) should be laid with a minimum I percent gradient ( I/!:! inch of fall per foot of pipe).

Ut'ilitv Lines
Unless they pass through the perimeter footing drain s�·stent all utility tr,mches should be backfilled \\'ith compacted on-site clay-rich materials "ithin 5 feet of any buildings. This will help to prevent migration of surface \\'ater into trenches and then underneath the structures· perimeter. The rest of the trenches ma�· be compacted with other nati\'e soils or clean imported lill. Only mechanical means or compaction of trench backfill \\'ill be allo\\'ed. Jetting of sands is not acceptable. Trench backfill should be compacted to at least 9U percent of its J\IIDD. Ho\\eYer. tmder paYements. concrete 11atwork. and footings the upper 12 inches of trench backfill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of its MDD .
. If deep{t' supported fm11ult1Jio11s are used ..flexible pipeline cou11ectio11s should be used where the utilities enter/exit the structures. Where 011-gratle f0111ulatio11s are 11.',e,I. it would be pmdeut to prm•itle tlrai1111ge lines wit/, greater 1J,a11 11omwl slope, or to iusta/1 sue/, liues wltere access to replace any sags or re,.erse slopes ca11 he easily corredetl.

Pavement
The ne\\ dri, e" ay may consist of concrete. interlocking pa,·ers. or asphaltic concrete o, er Cal trans Class II aggregate base (baserock). The asphalt should hm·e a minimum thickness of 2½ inches.

The baserock should ha\'e a minimum thickness of 6 inches. All of the baserock and the upper 6 inches of soil subgrade should attain a minimum compaction of 95 percent of its MDD. Any !ill below this la�·er should auain a m..inimum of 90 percent relati, e compaction. 12 File: 2152➔ 7
January 5. 20 LG
Plan Review and Constmction Observations
The use of the recommendations contained ,, ithin this repon is contingent upon our being contracted to re, ie,, the plans. and 10 obsen e geotechnically rele, ant aspects of the construction.

We should be pro,·ided ,,·ith a full set of plans to re, ie,, at the same time the plans are submitted to the building/planning department for re, ie". A minimum of one ,, orking week should be pro, ided for re, ie\\ of the plans.

At a minimum. our observations should include: compaction testing of fills and subgrades: footing excarntions: pier drilling: installation of helix piers or pipe piles: slab and dri,·e\\'ay subgrade preparation: installation of any drainage system (e.g. under-slab. footing. and surface). and final grading. A minimum of 48 hours notice should be pro,ided for all construction obsen at ions.

UMITATIO S
This repon has been prepared for the exclusi, e use of the addressee. and their architects and engineers for aiding in the design and construction of the proposed de,·elopment. h is the addressee's responsibility to pro, ide this repon to the appropriate design professionals. build mg officials. and contractors to ensure correct implementation of the reconm1endations.

The opinions. comments and conclusions presented in this report were based upon information deri,·ed from our field im-estigation and laboratory testing. Conditions bet\\'een or beyond our borings ma�· ,·ary from those encountered. Such rnriations may result in changes to our recommendations and possibly rnriat1ons in project costs. Should any additional information become mail able. or should there be changes in the proposed scope of\\ orl-. as outlined abo\'e. then we should be supplied "ith that information so as to make any necessa� changes to our opinions and recommendations. Such changes may require addi11011al inrestigation or analyses. and hence additional costs ma� be incurred.

Our work has been conducted in general conformance ,,·ith the standard of care in the field of geotechnical engineering currently in practice in the San Francisco Ba�· Area for projects of this nature and magnitude. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. By utilizing the design recommendations within this report. the addressee adnowledges and accepts the risks and limitations of de,·elopment at the site. as outlined within the repon.

Respectfull�· Submitted:

Geoforensics, Inc.

Daniel F. Dyckman. PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer. GE 21➔5
cc: 5 to addressee
13 Bernard A Atendido
Field Engineer
LINDA
NAil
Source: Thomas Bros.

GEOFOREN res. INc.
!161 PIigrim Dr .. Suite D, Foster City, CA 94404
Tel: (650) 349-3369 Fu: (650) 571-1878
,,
RD
PO
Figure 1 - Site Location
GEOFORENSICS. INC.
!161 Pilgrim Dr .. Sulit D, FosltrClty,CA 94404
Tri: (650) 349-Jl69 Fu: (650) 571-1878
Figure 2 - Vicinity Topography
..
�
� ,· '
\ j 't
� � ,.
(J
:;.: � �,.
' f -
�
5, \ ·�. y (_,4-... t
,.
'hft::�Q
I
\ I �
Artificial fill (Historic)-Loose to very well consolidated gravel. sand. silt. clay. rock frallfilents. organic niatter. and man-made debris in f Yariou5 combinations. lbic.kness i� ,·aiiable and may exceed 30 min 1 places. Some is compacted and quite finn. but fill made before 1965 is nearly every,vhere not compacted and consists simply of dumped materials
Alluvial fan and Ou,·ial deposits (Holocene) -Allmial fan deposits bro\\11 or tan. medi1m1 dense to dense. gravely sand or sandy gravel that generally grades up\\-ard to sandy or silty clay. Near the distal fan edges. the tlu,ial deposits are typically bro\\11. ueYer reddish. meditnn dense sand that fines llp\\'afd to sandy or silty clay Source: Geology of the Onshore part of San Mateo County, California: derived from the digital database open-file 98-137. E.E .. Brabb, R.W. Graymer, and D.L.Jones (1998) G[Oli'OREN ICS, INC.
561 PIigrim Dr., SulttD, FOlttrClty,CA94404
Ttl: (650) J49..J369 Fa1: (650) 571-1878
Figure 3 - Geologic Map
A.PPENDLX A - BORING LOGS
I
I IJ
,g
w a: _J UJ LU
Q. cc -I Q. l:i: �� � LU <( 0 Ill z Ill
- 1-1 �
1-2 �
10 1-3 �I
1-4
1 Cj �I
1-5 �
Jn
J"
I
i
I
Logged by: BA
Job# 215247
1 Drilled on 12/9/15
Ill
�V)
::, ai. o.r:: u �
3: N
o-..;;;Jcc
8 6
5 9
17 LOG OF BORING

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
I ; j )
silty SAND; green brown; slightly moist; loose (SM)
silty CLAY with sand; greenish gray to dark gray; moist (CH) SILT with organics; dark brown; moist; soft to firm (ML) (strong organic smell)
No recovery. Soll pulled out of sampler.
silty CLAY with some organics; blue green; slightly moist; 1 stiff (CH)
, silty CLAY; blue green; slightly moist; stiff (CH)
Bottom of Borins at 17.5 feet
Groundwater innitiallv encountered at 16 feet
Rose to 13 feet after 3 hours
B-24 Truck Mounted Drilling Rig
140 Pound Hammer
Groundwater to 13 feet
GEOFOREN JCS. l�c.

I
>-
I- R
iii LU .._.
z_ a::!z �'R. ::) LU � Ia:
>- .... -zOo 0 �u
101.2 11.0
- -
- -

21.5 - 21.3'
Mod. Cal
SPTSampler
Sampler
'�
!161 PUtrim Dr., Sulit D, Foster City, CA 9-'.w.l
Tel: (650) 3-'9-JJ69 Fu: (650) 571-1878
Figure A 1 - Log of Boring 1
loemy SAND; dark brown; slightly moist (SM)
30 E'
:J: -.,_
'
oemy SAND < ark r wn ~ I rn t SM
"
,,.
-
l'
~
~n
... 1 t··•
• I
- .
s

LOG OF BORING
I 11'1
~ !z i I ....
> ~ g :::, ~ vi w-- l,jJ a:: I l,jJ Ou z ..... a:: !z
::t: ....J i.lJ ....J U C w- ::, l,jJ
Q. co Q. 3: ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0~ t;; .... ....

Q. :i: :i: :i: 9:::. >-- - z w <:::, < a:: Oo
0 11'1 z Vl = Cl :i: u
2-1 l.-111 22 silty SAND; green brown; slightly moist; medium dense (SM) 109.7 8.0 c;
I I
I I
I I
I SILT with organics; dark brown; slightly moist to moist; 2-2 l.-1111 5 - - 1() I
soft (ML) (strong organic smell)
I
I I
I
~ I
2-3 11 1 silty CLAY; blue green; slightly moist; stiff (CH) - 20.2 1 c; I
I
I I
2-4 12 1 silty sandy CLAY with pockets of sand; green brown; slightly - 18.0 )0 moist to moist; stiff (CL)
I
I
2-5 ~ 16 I silty sandy CLAY with rock fragments; orange brown and I - 23.1 / c; 1 green brown; slightly moist; very stiff (CL) I
I
I
I
silty sandy CLAY; orange brown and green brown; slightly 2-6 15 moist; stiff to very stiff (CL) - 20.6
~n Bottom of Boring at 29.5 feet ' Groundwater initially encountered at 12.5 feet Rose to 12 feet after 1.S hours
I Logged by: BA 8-24 Truck Mounted Drilling Rig Mod.Cal.~ Job# 215247 140 Pound Hammer Sampler
I Drilled on 12/9/15 Groundwater to 12 feet SPT Sampler . I I
GEOFORENSI • INC.
561 Pllerim Dr., !,uJte D, Foster Qty, CA 9~ Figure A2 - Log of Boring 2 Td: (650) 3-19-3369 Fu: (6S0) 571-1878
~
GEOFORENSICS, INC.

UJ ..J uJ a:

Cl. C0 b'.: :E :E
< ::)
a V'I z
3-1
10 3-2
1 c;
,n
3-3

LOG OF BORING
V'I
�
!z �
::) (l)
UJ ...J 8�
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cl. 3: ;:::j :E
< 9::::

V'I C0
lA 15 silty SAND; green brown; slightly moist; medium dense (SM) SILT with organics; dark brown; moist (ML)
�· 12 silty sandy CLAY; blue green; slightly moist; stiff (CL) r:; silty sandy CLAY; orange brown and green brown; slightly I� 12 i moist; stiff (CL)
R
vi wz -- a: !z �'R ::) UJ � I-
>- - -z
a: Oo a :E u
- 9.6
- I 18.3

19.1 --+------------------+---..... --....

Logged by: BA
Job# 215247
Drilled on 12/9/15
Bottom of Boring at 23.5 feet
Groundwater encountered at 11 feet
B-24 Truck Mounted Drilling Rig
140 Pound Hammer
Groundwater at 1 1 feet
GEOFORENSICS, INC.
561 Pllcrlm Dr.. Wit' D, Foeter Qty, CA!>�
Tel: (650) 349..J36!> Fas: (650} 571-1 8
Figure A3 - Log of Boring 3
Mod.Cal
Sampler
,� SPTSampler
5 :5 ' E H (ft) lJl .
.
.
r
(I) I ' I , '
2 ~'
Cl)
- :i.,·;•)'~-
.
'-j' n r,,,._
!5 j1,'<:

IC,., kI
I
-
.
fl
I
!
II
I TY
I
....
l'-1·
-·
ff' .... _r_ /'.-
-,
-

APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
~<IDP~ Moisture-Density-Porosity Report
Cooper Testing labs, Inc. (ASTM 07263b)
CTLJob No: 060-2387a Project No. 215247 By: RU
Client: GeoForensics Date: 12/16/15
Project Name: Crespi Remarks:

Boring: 1-1 1-4 1-5 2-1 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6
Sample:

Depth, ft: 2 14 17 4 14 1 24 29
Visual Olive Olive Gray Olive Gray Olive Olive Gray Olive Olive Olive Description: Brown CLAYw/ Sandy Brown Sandy Brown Brown Brown Clayey Sand CLAY Sandy CLAY Sandy CLAY w/ CLAY w/
SANDw/ CLAY CLAY Sand Sand
Gravel
Actual Gs
Assumed Gs 2.70 2.70
Moisture, % 11 .0 21 .5 21 .3 8.0 20.2 18.0 23.1 20.6
Wet Unit wt. pcf 112.3 118.5
Dry Unit wt. pcf 101 .2 109.7
Dry Bulk Dens.pb, (glee) 1.62 1.76
Saturation, % 44.5 40.3
Total Porosity, % 40.0 34.9
Volumetric Water Coot,8w, % 17.8 14.1
Volumetric Air Cont., ea,% 22.2 20.9
Void Ratio 0.67 0.54
Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, porosities, and void ratio should be considered approximate.

Moisture-Density
Zero Air-voids Curves. Specific Gravity
140
E] ~ The Zero Air-Voids curves Series 1
130 represent the dry density at
~ 100% saturation ror each value
A Series 2 of specific gravity
120 . x Series 3
g_ 110 )K Series 4
~ .;
C • Series 5 100 ~ +Series 6
90 - - - Series 7
80 - - Series 8
70 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Moisture Content, %
@>p§) Moisture-Density-Porosity Report
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc. (ASTM 07263b)
CTLJob No: 060-2387b Project No. 215247 By: RU
Client: GeoForensics Date: 12/16/15
Project Name: Crespi Remarks: 3-1 (@. 3' - sample disturbed; m/c only.

Boring: 3-1 3-2 3-3
Sample:

Depth, ft: 3 13.5 23
Visual Olive Olive Gray Olive
Description: Brown CLAY w/ Brown
Sandy Sand Sandy

CLAY CLAY
Actual Gs
Assumed Gs
Moisture, % 9.6 18.3 19.1
Wet Unit wt, pcf
Dry Unit wt, pcf
Dry Bulk Dens.pb, (glee)
Saturation, %
Total Porosity, %
Volumetrn: Water Conl,9w,%
Volumetric A1rCont., ea,%
Void Ratio
Series 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Note: All reported parameters are from the as-received sample condition unless otherwise noted. If an assumed specific gravity (Gs) was used then the saturation, porosities, and void ratio should be considered approximate.

Moisture-Density
Zero Air-voids Curves. Soecific Gravity
140 ~
E] 12.11 The Zero Air-Voids curves Series 1
130 represent the dry density at
IT] 100% saturation for each value
or ti.Series 2 specific gravity
120
x Series 3
-I.)
Q. 110 - Series 4
iiii
C • Series 5 100 IP - 0
+ Series 6
90 - - - Series 7
80 - -Series 8
70 -

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0
Moisture Content, %
~@P~
Organic Content Test
ASTM D 297 4-00 (Method C - 440 °C)
CTL JOB NO. 060-2387 PROJECT: Crespi DATE: 12/16/2015
CLIENT: Geo Forensics PROJECT NO.: 215247 BY: RU
Boring: 1-2
Sample:

Depth (ft.):

Visual Description: Black Peat
Dish No.

Dish wt. , gm 67.88
Soil, Org, Dish & H2O, gm 128.79
Oven Dry wt (105°C), gm 78.29
Furnace Dry wt. (440°C), gm 69.26
Moisture Content,
% of Oven Ory Mass 485.1
Organic Matter, % 86.7
Note:

ASTM provides no guidelines for including information about the organic content of a sample in the description when the wet/dry liquid limit data is not available. CTL developed the following guidelines to fill this gap:
0-5%: The organics are either not mentioned or mentioned as being "trace". 5-15%: The soil is considered as inorganic and is classified, as per ASTM 2487, with "with organics" included in the desc 15-50%: The soil is considered as organic and is described, per ASTM 2487. >50%: The soil is described as "Peat".

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
110 Dashed line indicates the approximate / ,./'
- upper limit boundary for natural soils / .,,,- I
90 / - ~
X t_? '/"
uJ / 0
~ 70 ~
I
~
/ I I ~ ,/ I I
u / ,./' I I
i== so I L I
Cl) t- / ./1 I I I :5 I I a. / / I I I I
30 I I
/ o\. ~ / I I I
/ C,~ I I I I
1j I
t- -
- I I I ML urOL Hor OH L,
10 30 so 70 90 110 130 150 170 190

LIQUID LIMIT
610

I I I I
I I I I I I 600 I ! I
~ I
I- I I
~ I
I z
~ 590 I I
z ' ~ I
0 I I I I I (.) I I
~ I
0:: I I ~ 580 I I ~ I
<
~
I I
I I I "" I
570 I I I - '-
I ~ I
I I
5605 10 20 25 30 40

NUMBER OF BLOWS
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL Pl %<#40 %<#200 uses
• Black Peat - 0 3 0 10
Project No. 060-23 Client: GeoForensic Remarks:

Project: Crespi - _ 1 24 • ample was prepared u ing the wet prep m thod.
• Source: 1-2

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
COOPER TESTING LABORATORY Figure
~<IDP~
Consolidation Test
ASTM 02435
Job No.: 060-2387 Boring: 2-2 Run By: MO
Client: GeoForensics Sample: Reduced: PJ
Project: Cresei - 215247 Depth, ft.: Checked: PJ/DC
Soil Type: Black Peat Date: 1/4/2016
Strain-Log-P Curve

0.0 --- - -- -
~~ ~ ~ ~ ... 5.0
"'"'

10.0 ' I

15.0 \
, ~

20.0 •• '\
I 0 ~
~
~ \
c 25.0 ◄►
'ji ., \ I ...
en ~ i-.... 30.0 - i','( ', \ ....... 35.0
~ ~ ' [\ 40.0 ...... t-,.... t--.
r-,.~.

45.0 50.0 I
10 100 1000 10000
Effective Stress, psf
Assumed Gs 2.2 Initial Final Remarks:

Moisture%: 313.6 275.4
Dry Density, pcf: 15.6 19.5
Void Ratio: 7.792 6.059
% Saturation: 88.5 100.0
Appendix C
Environmental Noise Assessment
Prepared for:

Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive
Sacramento, CA 95834
Prepared by:

Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.

Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) 570 Crespi Drive
City of Pacifica, California
September 22, 2021
Project # 200204
Environmental Noise Assessment
(916) 760-8821
www.SaxNoise.com I [email protected]
915 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 250
Roseville, CA 95678
570 Crespi Drive – City of Pacifica, CA
Job #200204
September 22, 2021 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\SAXDESKTOPNEW\Job Folders\200204 570 Crespi Drive IS\Word\200204 570 Crespi Drive Noise 9Ͳ22Ͳ21.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.............................................................................................................. 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE .......................................................................................... 3 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS .......................................................................... 8 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS.......................................................................................................... 8 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELs..................................................................................... 8 EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES ON THE PROJECT SITE .................................... 9 ONͲSITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 9 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFFͲSITE RECEPTORS................................................... 11 OFFͲSITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 11 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................... 13 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................. 17 REGULATORY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 20 FEDERAL.................................................................................................................................20 STATE ....................................................................................................................................20 LOCAL....................................................................................................................................20 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 28 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................... 28 PROJECTͲSPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................. 30 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
570 Crespi Drive – City of Pacifica, CA
Job #200204
September 22, 2021 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\SAXDESKTOPNEW\Job Folders\200204 570 Crespi Drive IS\Word\200204 570 Crespi Drive Noise 9Ͳ22Ͳ21.docx List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan..........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations....................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Future Noise Contours................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4: Construction Noise Contours and Point LevelsͲwithout Pile Driving......................................... 17 Figure 5: Construction Noise Contours and Point Levels – with Pile Driving.............................................. 18 List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels......................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 9 Table 3: Traffic Noise Levels at Project Facades......................................................................................... 11 Table 4: Predicted Traffic Noise Level and ProjectͲRelated Traffic Noise Level Increases......................... 12 Table 5: Baseline Traffic Noise Level and ProjectͲRelated Traffic Noise Level Increases........................... 12 Table 6: Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and ProjectͲRelated Traffic Noise Level Increases ......................13 Table 7: Construction Equipment Noise Levels for Primary Construction Phases ..................................... 14 Table 8: Predicted Construction Noise Levels by Loudest Phases.............................................................. 15 Table 9: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment.................................................................. 19 Table 10: Proposed General Plan Update Land Use Compatibility For Community Noise......................... 22 Table 11: Proposed General Plan Update Allowable Noise Exposure ........................................................ 23 Table 12: Proposed General Plan Noise Level Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources.......23 Table 13: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings.............................................................................. 27 Table 14: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ................................................................................. 29 570 Crespi Drive – City of Pacifica, CA
Job #200204
September 22,
2021
www.SaxNoise.com