Attachment L - Draft EIR Appendices — Pleasant Hill City Council, May 18, 2023

Appendix A
NOP and Scoping Comments Received
City of Pleasant Hill

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING MEETING
Environmental Impact Report for the
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Thursday,July 7,2022
Reviewing Agencies,Organizations,and Interested Parties Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pleasant Hill General Plan Update as well as Notice of EIR Scoping Meeting on Tuesday,July 26,2022 The City of Pleasant Hill (City), as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is preparing an update to the Pleasant Hill General Plan that will guide growth and development through 2040 and has determined that preparation of a programmatic EIR is necessary to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the 2040 General Plan and associated Zoning Code amendments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the CEQA Lead Agency and is requesting input on the scope of the EIR from responsible and trustee agencies,interested public agencies and organizations,and the general public (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082).

This NOP provides a summary of the plan,the City's preliminary identification of the potential environmental issues to be analyzed in the programmatic EIR; and information on how to comment on the scope of the EIR. This NOP and background documents associated with the 2040 General Plan are available for review on the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan webpage at:https://pleasanthill2040.com/.

Date:

To:

Subject:

EIR NOP Public Review Period: July 7,2022 to August 8, 2022 The City requests your review and consideration of this notice and invites input and comments from interested agencies, persons, and organizations regarding the preparation of the 2040 General Plan EIR. Comments in response to this notice must be in writingand submitted to the Lead Agency Contact below by 5:00p.m. on Monday August 8, 2022. If applicable, please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization.

NOP Written Comments:Comments must be submitted via mail or email with "NOP Comments: Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan EIR" in the subject line and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the comment to the Lead Agency Contact at the following address or e-mail by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2022:

Troy Fujimoto,City Planner
Pleasant Hill Planning Division
100 Gregory Lane,Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tfuiimoto(5> pleasanthillca.org
EIR Public Scoping Meeting: The City will hold a public EIR scoping meeting via video conference only (and as part of a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting) to provide an opportunity for agency staff and interested members of the public to submit verbal comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. Please note the meeting link and information below:

Planning Commission Meeting
July 26, 2022 @ 6:30PM
Meeting Link -www.zoom.us
Webinar ID: 854 1805 8051
Passcode: 061787
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
EIR for 2040 General Plan

Page 2 of 4 ends

To supplement a PC, Mac,tablet or device without audio,please join by phone at (669) 900-6833.

Use the "Raise Hand" feature in Zoom so we know you wish to speak. (If you are calling on a telephone, please press *9 to virtually raise your hand inZoom).When it is your turnto speak,City Staff will invite you.You must mute your speakers if you are watching the meeting via livestream (Youtube or City Website) or there will be feedback during the meeting. Please note that comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.

If you only wish to watch the meeting live,you can find it on our website at www.pleasanthillca.org and clicking on the large orange button labeled "Watch Meetings" or visit www.pleasanthillca.org/planningcom.

Plan Location:The Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan encompasses the entirety of the City of Pleasant Hill. Figure 1 shows the regional location,and Figure 2 shows both the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan boundary (the City limits).

ProposedPlan:The 2040 General Plan would serve as a long-term framework forfuture growth,establish the City's eight-year housing plan from 2023 to 2031, reflect issues identified from community input and changes in State law,and update all elements of the General Plan including the Land Use and Community Design;Housing,Economic Development; Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure; Mobility; Open Space, Parks, and Recreation; Environment;and Hazards and Safety.The update to the General Plan would include,but is not limited to,revisions to policies,narratives,data,and figures to reflect the new buildout period. The Zoning Code would also be amended to ensure consistency with the General Plan (including Housing Element).

EIR Environmental Impact Areas: The EIR will provide a programmatic evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the plan. The EIR also will evaluate the cumulative impacts of the plan when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The City anticipates that the plan could result in potentially significant environmental impacts with regard to the following topic areas,which will be further evaluated in the EIR.

Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
EIR Plan Alternatives: The EIR will also evaluate a reasonable range of plan alternatives that could reduce or avoid potential environmental effects identified in the EIR,including a required "No Plan" Alternative.

When the Draft EIR is completed,it will be available for review at the City's offices located 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 and online at: https://www.pleasanthillca.org/. The City will issue a Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR at that time to inform the public and interested agencies, groups, and individuals regarding how to access the Draft EIR and provide comments. Additional information about the proposed plan can be accessed at the https://pleasanthill2040.com/ webpage and the City website at https://www.pleasanthillca.org/.

If you have questions regarding this NOP or the EIR public scoping meeting,please contact the Lead Agency Contact Troy Fujimoto at (925) 671-5209 or via email at [email protected].

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and
Service Systems
Wildfire
Troy Fujimoto,City Planner Date
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
EIR for 2040 General Plan

Page 3 of 4 ends

Figure 1 Regional Location
f§i£
S»|j
o
CQtZ,Q0ST4
c
°C, TY
r '

H A COSTA
Bay Point 0
*Mrry
illovv Pasi Rd
*0
33 Martinez o- A Navai Weapons
Station Concord
£
Concord
TT'
b
'
s V,
,
/
,
a * Kj>/rGl ^ ft
Pleasant Hill
,v
- »es
Regional
Park
Clayton
24 Lafayette
Orinda
Mount Diablo T
- State Park
T 6
^ 4
0 1.5 3 Miles Moraga
I
Imagery provided by Esrl and its licensors © 2022.

Walnut Creek quadrangle and T01N R02W502-05,08-11,14-16& T02N R02W 527,32-35. Ukiah Yuba
City
Eldorado
N«tk»r
Forest N w
|l l|City of Pleasant Hill ^
Sacramento SB
Santa Rosa
Elk Grove Vacaville
Fairfield &
Vallejo Stockton
San
francisco
*2?
Livermore
&
Modesto
San Mateo 99 Fremont
W *2'
Merced
San Jose
Los Banos 152 Santa Cruz
bU
Salinas
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
EIR for 2040 General Plan

Page 4 of 4 ends

Figure 2 General Plan Boundary
OAK PARK BtVD
City Limits (General Plan
2040 Boundary)
QH Sphere of Influence
Highway
— Roadways
Railroad
Creek Drainage
0 0.375 0.75 N
A
I I I
Mile Source: City of Pleasant Hill, 2019.

3ULQWHGRQ5HF\FOHG3DSHU
6(179,$(/(&7521,&0$,/
$XJXVW
0U7UR\)XMLPRWR
&LW\3ODQQHU
3OHDVDQW+LOO3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ
*UHJRU\/DQH
3OHDVDQW+LOO&$

7IXLLPRWR#SOHDVDQWKLOOFDRUJ
127,&(2)35(3$5$7,212)$1(19,5210(17$/,03$&75(3257)257+( 3/($6$17+,//*(1(5$/3/$183'$7(±'$7('-8/<

67$7(&/($5,1*+286(180%(5

'HDU0U)XMLPRWR

7KH'HSDUWPHQWRI7R[LF6XEVWDQFHV&RQWURO
'76&
UHFHLYHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ

123
RIDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH3OHDVDQW+LOO*HQHUDO3ODQ
8SGDWH
3URMHFW
7KH/HDG$JHQF\LVUHFHLYLQJWKLVQRWLFHIURP'76&EHFDXVHWKH 3URMHFWLQFOXGHVRQHRUPRUHRIWKHIROORZLQJ
JURXQGEUHDNLQJDFWLYLWLHVZRUNLQFORVH
SUR[LPLW\WRDURDGZD\ZRUNLQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRPLQLQJRUVXVSHFWHGPLQLQJRUIRUPHU PLQLQJDFWLYLWLHVSUHVHQFHRIVLWHEXLOGLQJVWKDWPD\UHTXLUHGHPROLWLRQRUPRGLILFDWLRQV LPSRUWDWLRQRIEDFNILOOVRLODQGRUZRUNRQRULQFORVHSUR[LPLW\WRDQDJULFXOWXUDORU IRUPHUDJULFXOWXUDOVLWH
'76&UHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKH+D]DUGVDQG+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOVVHFWLRQRIWKH(,5 DGGUHVVDFWLRQVWREHWDNHQIRUDQ\VLWHVLPSDFWHGE\KD]DUGRXVZDVWHRUKD]DUGRXV PDWHULDOVZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWDUHDQRWMXVWWKRVHIRXQGRQWKH&RUWHVH/LVW1RWDOOVLWHV LPSDFWHGE\KD]DUGRXVZDVWHRUKD]DUGRXVPDWHULDOVZLOOEHIRXQGRQWKH&RUWHVH/LVW '76&UHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKH+D]DUGVDQG+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOVVHFWLRQRIWKH(,5 DGGUHVVDFWLRQVWREHWDNHQIRUDQ\VLWHVLPSDFWHGE\KD]DUGRXVZDVWHRUKD]DUGRXV PDWHULDOVZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWDUHDQRWMXVWWKRVHIRXQGRQWKH&RUWHVH/LVW'76& UHFRPPHQGVFRQVXOWLQJZLWKRWKHUDJHQFLHVWKDWPD\SURYLGHRYHUVLJKWWRKD]DUGRXV ZDVWHIDFLOLWLHVDQGVLWHVLQRUGHUWRGHWHUPLQHDFRPSUHKHQVLYHOLVWLQJRIDOOVLWHV LPSDFWHGE\KD]DUGRXVZDVWHRUKD]DUGRXVPDWHULDOVZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWDUHD'76& 0U7UR\)XMLPRWR
$XJXVW
3DJH
KD]DUGRXVZDVWHIDFLOLWLHVDQGVLWHVZLWKNQRZQRUVXVSHFWHGFRQWDPLQDWLRQLVVXHVFDQ EHIRXQGRQ'76&¶V(QYLUR6WRUGDWDPDQDJHPHQWV\VWHP7KH(QYLUR6WRU0DSIHDWXUH FDQEHXVHGWRORFDWHKD]DUGRXVZDVWHIDFLOLWLHVDQGVLWHVIRUDFRXQW\FLW\RUDVSHFLILF DGGUHVV$VHDUFKZLWKLQ(QYLUR6WRULQGLFDWHVWKDWPRUHWKDQRQHKD]DUGRXVZDVWH IDFLOLWLHVDQGVLWHVDUHSUHVHQWZLWKLQWKH3URMHFW¶VUHJLRQ '76&UHFRPPHQGVWKDWWKHIROORZLQJLVVXHVEHHYDOXDWHGLQWKH+D]DUGVDQG +D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOVVHFWLRQRIWKH(,5

7KH(,5VKRXOGDFNQRZOHGJHWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUKLVWRULFRUIXWXUHDFWLYLWLHVRQRU QHDUWKH3URMHFWVLWHWRUHVXOWLQWKHUHOHDVHRIKD]DUGRXVZDVWHVVXEVWDQFHVRQ WKH3URMHFWVLWH,QLQVWDQFHVLQZKLFKUHOHDVHVKDYHRFFXUUHGRUPD\RFFXU IXUWKHUVWXGLHVVKRXOGEHFDUULHGRXWWRGHOLQHDWHWKHQDWXUHDQGH[WHQWRIWKH FRQWDPLQDWLRQDQGWKHSRWHQWLDOWKUHDWWRSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGRUWKHHQYLURQPHQW VKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHG7KH(,5VKRXOGDOVRLGHQWLI\WKHPHFKDQLVP V
WRLQLWLDWH
DQ\UHTXLUHGLQYHVWLJDWLRQDQGRUUHPHGLDWLRQDQGWKHJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\ZKR ZLOOEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUSURYLGLQJDSSURSULDWHUHJXODWRU\RYHUVLJKW 5HILQHUVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVVWDUWHGDGGLQJOHDGFRPSRXQGVWRJDVROLQHLQWKH
VLQRUGHUWRERRVWRFWDQHOHYHOVDQGLPSURYHHQJLQHSHUIRUPDQFH 7KLVSUDFWLFHGLGQRWRIILFLDOO\HQGXQWLO

ZKHQOHDGZDVEDQQHGDVDIXHO
DGGLWLYHLQ&DOLIRUQLD7DLOSLSHHPLVVLRQVIURPDXWRPRELOHVXVLQJOHDGHGJDVROLQH FRQWDLQHGOHDGDQGUHVXOWHGLQDHULDOO\GHSRVLWHGOHDG $'/
EHLQJGHSRVLWHGLQ
DQGDORQJURDGZD\VWKURXJKRXWWKHVWDWH$'/FRQWDPLQDWHGVRLOVVWLOOH[LVW DORQJURDGVLGHVDQGPHGLDQVDQGFDQDOVREHIRXQGXQGHUQHDWKVRPHH[LVWLQJ URDGVXUIDFHVGXHWRSDVWFRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHV'XHWRWKHSRWHQWLDOIRU $'/FRQWDPLQDWHGVRLO'76&UHFRPPHQGVFROOHFWLQJVRLOVDPSOHVIRUOHDG DQDO\VLVSULRUWRSHUIRUPLQJDQ\LQWUXVLYHDFWLYLWLHVIRUWKH3URMHFWGHVFULEHGLQ WKH(,5
,IDQ\VLWHVZLWKLQWKH3URMHFWDUHDRUVLWHVORFDWHGZLWKLQWKHYLFLQLW\RIWKH3URMHFW KDYHEHHQXVHGRUDUHVXVSHFWHGRIKDYLQJEHHQXVHGIRUPLQLQJDFWLYLWLHV SURSHULQYHVWLJDWLRQIRUPLQHZDVWHVKRXOGEHGLVFXVVHGLQWKH(,5'76& UHFRPPHQGVWKDWDQ\3URMHFWVLWHVZLWKFXUUHQWDQGRUIRUPHUPLQLQJRSHUDWLRQV RQVLWHRULQWKH3URMHFWVLWHDUHDVKRXOGEHHYDOXDWHGIRUPLQHZDVWHDFFRUGLQJWR '76&¶V

$EDQGRQHG0LQH/DQG0LQHV3UHOLPLQDU\$VVHVVPHQW+DQGERRN ,IEXLOGLQJVRURWKHUVWUXFWXUHVDUHWREHGHPROLVKHGRQDQ\SURMHFWVLWHVLQFOXGHG LQWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWVXUYH\VVKRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGIRUWKHSUHVHQFHRI OHDGEDVHGSDLQWVRUSURGXFWVPHUFXU\DVEHVWRVFRQWDLQLQJPDWHULDOVDQG SRO\FKORULQDWHGELSKHQ\OFDXON5HPRYDOGHPROLWLRQDQGGLVSRVDORIDQ\RIWKH DERYHPHQWLRQHGFKHPLFDOVVKRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWK&DOLIRUQLD 0U7UR\)XMLPRWR
$XJXVW
3DJH
HQYLURQPHQWDOUHJXODWLRQVDQGSROLFLHV,QDGGLWLRQVDPSOLQJQHDUFXUUHQWDQGRU IRUPHUEXLOGLQJVVKRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWK'76&¶V ,QWHULP*XLGDQFH(YDOXDWLRQRI6FKRRO6LWHVZLWK3RWHQWLDO&RQWDPLQDWLRQIURP /HDG%DVHG3DLQW7HUPLWLFLGHVDQG(OHFWULFDO7UDQVIRUPHUV ,IDQ\SURMHFWVLQLWLDWHGDVSDUWRIWKHSURSRVHG3URMHFWUHTXLUHWKHLPSRUWDWLRQRI VRLOWREDFNILOODQ\H[FDYDWHGDUHDVSURSHUVDPSOLQJVKRXOGEHFRQGXFWHGWR HQVXUHWKDWWKHLPSRUWHGVRLOLVIUHHRIFRQWDPLQDWLRQ'76&UHFRPPHQGVWKH LPSRUWHGPDWHULDOVEHFKDUDFWHUL]HGDFFRUGLQJWR'76&¶V,QIRUPDWLRQ $GYLVRU\&OHDQ,PSRUWHG)LOO0DWHULDO ,IDQ\VLWHVLQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIWKHSURSRVHG3URMHFWKDYHEHHQXVHGIRU DJULFXOWXUDOZHHGDEDWHPHQWRUUHODWHGDFWLYLWLHVSURSHULQYHVWLJDWLRQIRU RUJDQRFKORULQDWHGSHVWLFLGHVVKRXOGEHGLVFXVVHGLQWKH(,5'76& UHFRPPHQGVWKHFXUUHQWDQGIRUPHUDJULFXOWXUDOODQGVEHHYDOXDWHGLQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWK'76&¶V ,QWHULP*XLGDQFHIRU6DPSOLQJ$JULFXOWXUDO 3URSHUWLHV
7KLUG5HYLVLRQ
'76&DSSUHFLDWHVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRFRPPHQWRQWKH(,56KRXOG\RXQHHGDQ\ DVVLVWDQFHZLWKDQHQYLURQPHQWDOLQYHVWLJDWLRQSOHDVHYLVLW'76&¶V6LWH0LWLJDWLRQDQG 5HVWRUDWLRQ3URJUDPSDJHWRDSSO\IRUOHDGDJHQF\RYHUVLJKW$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJYROXQWDU\DJUHHPHQWVZLWK'76&FDQEHIRXQGDW'76&¶V%URZQILHOGZHEVLWH ,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVSOHDVHFRQWDFWPHDW

RUYLDHPDLODW
%ULDQ0F$ORRQ#GWVFFDJRY 6LQFHUHO\
%ULDQ0F$ORRQ
3URMHFW0DQDJHU
6LWH(YDOXDWLRQDQG5HPHGLDWLRQ8QLW
6LWH0LWLJDWLRQDQG5HVWRUDWLRQ3URJUDP
'HSDUWPHQWRI7R[LF6XEVWDQFHV&RQWURO
FF

YLDHPDLO

*RYHUQRU¶V2IILFHRI3ODQQLQJ
DQG5HVHDUFK
6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH
6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH#RSUFDJRY
0U'DYH.HUHD]LV
2IILFHRI3ODQQLQJ (QYLURQPHQWDO$QDO\VLV
'HSDUWPHQWRI7R[LF6XEVWDQFHV&RQWURO
'DYH.HUHD]LV#GWVFFDJRY
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
August 8, 2022
Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected] Subject: Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan, Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022070095, City of Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa County
Dear Mr. Fujimoto:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan (Project).

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. [Fish and Game Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) and I 802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21 070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (ld., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21 069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW's Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority (Fish and Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take" as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code will be required.

Pursuant to our jurisdiction, CDFW has provided concerns, comments, and recommendations regarding the Project herein.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 2 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Pleasant Hill (City) proposes to update the Pleasant Hill General Plan to guide citywide growth and development through the year 2040. The Project would serve as a long-term frame for future growth, establish the City’s 8-year housing plan from 2023 to 2031, reflect issues identified from community input and changes in State law, and update all elements of the General Plan including the Land Use and Community Design; Housing, Economic Development; Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure; Mobility; Open Space, Parks, and Recreation; Environment; and Hazards and Safety.

PROJECT LOCATION
This Project encompasses the entire City of Pleasant Hill, in Contra Costa County, State of California, as defined by city boundaries.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY
California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in take[1] of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Issuance of a CESA Permit is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required to obtain a CESA ITP.

Please note that CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines § 15380, 15064, and 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.

[1] Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt any of those activities.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 3 ends

Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
Please be advised that CDFW requires an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 1600 et seq., for any Project-related activities potentially affecting rivers, lakes, or streams, and their associated riparian habitat. Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are generally subject to notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency, will consider the CEQA document for the Project and may issue an LSA Agreement. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as a Responsible Agency.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
Fish and Game Code, § 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 places protections on birds, their eggs, and nests. CDFW has authority over actions that may disturb or destroy active nest sites or take birds. Fully protected bird species, such as the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish and Game Code, § 3511). Additionally, migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) require that the draft EIR incorporate a full Project description, including reasonably foreseeable future phases of the Project, that contains sufficient information to evaluate and review the Project’s environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15124 & 15378). Please include a complete description of the following Project components in the Project description, as applicable:  Footprints of permanent Project features and temporarily impacted areas, such as staging areas, access routes, and high fire risk zones targeted for vegetation treatment or removal.  Land use changes that would reduce open space or agricultural land uses and increase residential or other land use involving increased development.  Area and plans for any proposed buildings/structures, ground disturbing activities, fencing, paving, stationary machinery, landscaping, vegetation treatment for fuel reduction, floodwalls or levees, and stormwater systems.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 4 ends

(describe seasonal or daily peaks in activity, if relevant), artificial lighting/light reflection, noise, traffic generation, and other features.  Construction schedule, activities, equipment, and crew sizes.

Based on the broad scope of the Project, the NOP indicates that the draft EIR may be a program EIR (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168). In this case, while program EIRs have a necessarily broad scope, CDFW recommends providing as much information related to anticipated future activities as possible. CDFW recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15152, subdivision (c), if a Lead Agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR or large-scale planning approval, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible and can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Lead Agency prepares a future environmental document. This future environmental document would cover a project of a more limited geographical scale and is appropriate if the deferred information does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. The CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(4) states, “Where the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.” Based on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.3 and associated Appendix N Checklist, and consistent with other program EIRs, CDFW recommends creating a procedure or checklist for evaluating subsequent project impacts on biological resources to determine if they are within the scope of the program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This checklist should be included as an attachment to the draft EIR. Future analysis should include all special-status species and sensitive natural communities including but not limited to species considered rare, threatened, or endangered pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

When used appropriately, the checklist should be accompanied by enough relevant information and reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological resources, a site-specific analysis should be prepared by a qualified biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist should cite the specific portions of the draft EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the draft EIR.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 5 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The draft EIR should provide sufficient information regarding the environmental setting (“baseline”) to understand the Project’s, and its alternatives (if applicable), potentially significant impacts on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125 and 15360).

CDFW recommends that the draft EIR provide baseline habitat assessments for specialstatus plant, fish, and wildlife species located and potentially located within the Project area and surrounding lands, including but not limited to all rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The draft EIR should also describe aquatic habitats, such as wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. or State, and any sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat occurring on or adjacent to the Project site.

Sensitive natural communities can be found here: (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/ NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20communities).

Habitat descriptions and the potential for species occurrence should include information from multiple sources, such as aerial imagery; historical and recent survey data; field reconnaissance; scientific literature and reports; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation System
(https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/); findings from positive occurrence databases such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB;
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS). SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NESTING BIRDS CDFW is concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species that may be present within the Project area, including, but not limited to, those listed below (CDFW 2022):  Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) – State Threatened (ST), Federal Threatened (FT)  California tiger salamander, central California Distinct Population Segment (Ambystoma californiense pop. 1) – ST, FT  California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) – State Species of Special Concern (SSC), FT  foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) – State Endangered (SE), proposed for listing as Threatened under FESA  giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) – ST, Federal Endangered (FE)  San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) – ST, FE  Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) – SSC Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 6 ends

1B.2  big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumose) – CRPR 1B.2  Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) – FE  Contra Costa wallflower (Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum) – SE, FE  fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) – CRPR 1B.2  large-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia grandiflora) – SE, FE  Mason’s lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis masonii) – CRPR 1B.1  Mt. Diablo’s bird beak (Cordylanthus nidularius) – CRPR 1B.1  Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) – CRPR 1B.2  rock sanicle (Sanicula saxatilis) – CRPR 1B.2  soft bird’s beak (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) – FE Surveys should be conducted for special-status species with potential to occur, following recommended survey protocols. CDFW-recommended survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines for a subset of the resources listed above are available at:
(https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols).

Botanical surveys for special-status plant species, including those with a California Rare Plant Rank (http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/), must be conducted during the blooming period for all species potentially impacted by the Project within the Project area and adjacent habitats that may be indirectly impacted by, for example, changes to hydrology, and require the identification of reference populations. More than one year of Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 7 ends

surveys may be necessary given environmental conditions. Please refer to CDFW protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to rare plants, and survey reporting requirements (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants).

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Based on the data and information from the habitat assessment, the draft EIR should adequately assess which special-status species are likely to occur on or near the Project site, and whether they could be impacted by the Project. The draft EIR should also adequately analyze and discuss what measures are proposed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for potential impacts. The draft EIR should include the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect changes (temporary and permanent) that may occur with implementation of the Project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126, 15126.2, and 15358). This includes, but is not limited to, evaluating and describing impacts such as:  Encroachments into and alterations to riparian habitats, wetlands, or other sensitive areas and habitats.  Potential impacts to special-status species or sensitive natural communities. This may include:
o Inadvertent entrapment or impingement;
o Permanent and temporary habitat disturbance, fragmentation, or loss; and o Loss or modification of breeding, nesting, dispersal and foraging habitat, including vegetation removal, alteration of soils and hydrology, and removal of habitat structural features (e.g., snags, rock outcrops, overhanging banks); o Loss of connectivity and/or obstruction of movement corridors, fish passage, or access to water sources and other core habitat features; o Decreased ability to reproduce or reduced reproductive/breeding success (loss or reduced health or vigor of eggs or young);
o Interference with list-species recovery plan(s);
o Permanent and temporary habitat disturbances associated with ground disturbance, noise, lighting, reflection, air pollution, traffic, or human presence resultant from the project;
o Direct mortality.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 8 ends

include, but is not limited to:
o Impacts arising from the need for new infrastructure to support Project activities, such as installation of new roads, water systems, sewage treatment facilities, or other utilities;
o Reduced groundwater infiltration due to increased impermeability from the installation of new structures, which has the potential to impact both surface and subsurface stream flows, which can deteriorate riparian habitats that can no longer access subsurface flows; create an influx of runoff during heavy rain events, which can contribute to streambank erosion; and contribute to surface water pollution, which poses a multitude of concerns for the health and biodiversity in riparian habitats.

The draft EIR should also identify reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Project vicinity, disclose any cumulative impacts associated with these projects, determine the significance of each cumulative impact, and assess the significance of the project’s contribution to the impact (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). Although a project’s impacts may be less-than-significant individually, its contributions to a cumulative impact may be considerable; a contribution to a significant cumulative impact, e.g., reduction of habitat for a special-status species should be considered cumulatively considerable.

AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on the comprehensive analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project, the CEQA Guidelines direct the Lead Agency to consider and describe all feasible measures to avoid potentially significant impacts in the draft EIR and mitigation of potentially significant impacts of the Project on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, 15063, 15071, 15126.4, and 15370). This includes a discussion of impact avoidance and minimization measures for special-status species, which are recommended to be developed in early consultation with CDFW, USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These measures should be incorporated as enforceable Project conditions to reduce impacts to biological resources to less-thansignificant levels. Fully protected species such as the golden eagle and the white-tailed kite may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish and Game Code, § 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Therefore, the draft EIR should include measures to ensure complete avoidance of these species.

CDFW recommends that the draft EIR include development of a robust mitigation plan that will reduce the impacts of the Project to a less-than-significant level and provide benefits to local or on-site resources and species.

Mr. Troy Fujimoto
City of Pleasant Hill
August 8, 2022

Page 9 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB. The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals. FILING FEES The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the NOP to assist the City of Pleasant Hill in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Mia Bianchi, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at (707) 815-8722 or [email protected]; or Michelle Battaglia, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 339-6052 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
cc: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento

LITERATURE CITED
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Accessed August 4, 2022
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Bradley Olazo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 8:32 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mark Boucher
Subject: NOP Comments: Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan EIR - FC District Attachments: Drainage Fee Schedule 2022.pdf
Hi Troy,
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Pleasant Hill (City) 2040 General Plan Update (GPU) dated July 7, 2022. We submit the following comments:

1. We request that the EIR provide a map of the watersheds within the GPU area, especially where the land use designation changes will be located. The map should include the watershed boundaries, show all existing watercourses, tributaries, and man-made drainage facilities within the project site that could be impacted by the City’s GPU and also identify the FC District’s right of way. The FC District can assist in this by providing a GIS layer of our right of way.

2. The EIR should discuss any proposed changes in density from the City’s current General Plan, and its corresponding increases in impervious surface, and discuss its effect on the existing storm drain systems and any mitigations that are necessary, such as upgrading the existing storm drain systems or constructing detention basins.

Any parcels that are currently open space, to be developed as per the proposed General Plan amendment, have the potential to create new impervious surface areas and increase runoff, which could result in erosion or capacity issues in creeks. The EIR should discuss any impacts to downstream facilities due to higher volume of runoff.

3. We recommend that the EIR stipulate that future developments should design and construct storm drain facilities to adequately collect and convey stormwater runoff, without diversion of the watershed, entering or originating within the development to the nearest natural watercourse or adequate man-made drainage facility.

4. We recommend that the adequacy and stability of the drainage facilities within the GPU area be studied to determine if local drainage design criteria are met, as well as FEMA National Floodplain Insurance requirements.

If those criteria are not met, or if there are potential capacity or erosion concerns attributable to the GPU land use changes, then the CEQA documents should discuss the potential impacts and propose mitigation measures to address those impacts. The discussion should also include an analysis of the capacity and erosion potential of the existing watercourses.

5. The City is within the Grayson Creek/Murderers Creek Watershed. We recommend that the EIR discuss any direct impacts to the creeks, their tributaries, and downstream receiving waters, resulting from future developments be mitigated.

6. The EIR should discuss the payment of drainage area fees for development within formed drainage areas as a mitigation measure. The FC District charges drainage area fees for any new impervious surfaces created within Drainage Areas 16, 44B, 46, 47, 62, 72, 78, and 89. By ordinance, all building permits or subdivision maps filed in 2 this area are subject to the provisions of the drainage fee ordinance. Effective January 1, 2022, the current fees in these drainage areas are listed in the attached Drainage Fee Schedule per square foot of newly created impervious surface.

Please note that the FC District is not the approving local agency for projects within the City’s jurisdiction as defined by the Subdivision Map Act. As a special district, the FC District has an independent authority to collect drainage fees that is not restricted by the Subdivision Map Act. The FC District reviews the drainage fee rate every year that the ordinance is in effect and adjusts the rate annually on January 1 to account for inflation. The drainage fee rate does not vest at the time of tentative map approval. The drainage fees due and payable will be based on the fee in effect at the time of fee collection.

The FC District’s 50-year plan encourages local communities to plan for modifying flood control channels to incorporate natural features. This project provides an opportunity to implement restoration enhancement for Grayson and Murderers creeks. We recommend that all future projects and developments, as applicable, be conditioned to implement restoration activities to improve habitat value and migration. For reference, the FC District’s 50-year plan is linked below:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6853/50---Year-Plan-3-20-09-BOS-compressedPDF?bidId=\

7. We recommend that the EIR request the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, to explore the permits, special conditions, and mitigation that may be necessary for this project.

8. The EIR should discuss how the GPU will comply with the current NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) requirements under the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinances and the C.3 Guidebook.

9. The FC District should be included in the review of all drainage facilities that have a region-wide benefit, that impact region-wide facilities, or that impact FC District-owned facilities. The FC District is available to provide technical assistance to the City in their update efforts under our Fee-for-Service program.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the 2040 General Plan Update and look forward to reviewing the EIR. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Thanks,
Brad Olazo
Contra Costa County Public Works: Flood Control
255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
p: 925.313.2308 | e: [email protected] | cccpublicworks.org ´3URYLGHDVDIHDQGUHOLDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWKDWVHUYHVDOOSHRSOHDQGUHVSHFWVWKHHQYLURQPHQWµ ',675,&7
2)),&( 2) 75$16,7 $1' &20081,7< 3/$11,1*
32%2;06²'_2$./$1'&$

ZZZGRWFDJRY
$XJXVW 6&+

*76
&&
*76,'

&R5W3P
&&9$59$5
7UR\)XMLPRWR&LW\3ODQQHU
&LW\RI3OHDVDQW+LOO
*UHJRU\/DQH
3OHDVDQW+LOO&$

5H
3OHDVDQW+LOO*HQHUDO3ODQ1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRU'UDIW(QYLURQPHQWDO
,PSDFW5HSRUW
'(,5

'HDU7UR\)XMLPRWR

7KDQN\RXIRULQFOXGLQJWKH&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ &DOWUDQV
LQWKH
HQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZSURFHVVIRUWKH3OHDVDQW+LOO*HQHUDO3ODQ3URMHFW:HDUH FRPPLWWHGWRHQVXULQJWKDWLPSDFWVWRWKH6WDWH·VPXOWLPRGDOWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHP DQGWRRXUQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDUHLGHQWLILHGDQGPLWLJDWHGWRVXSSRUWDVDIH VXVWDLQDEOHLQWHJUDWHGDQGHIILFLHQWWUDQVSRUWDWLRQV\VWHP7KHIROORZLQJFRPPHQWV DUHEDVHGRQRXUUHYLHZRIWKH-XO\123
3URMHFW8QGHUVWDQGLQJ
7KH*HQHUDO3ODQZRXOGVHUYHDVDORQJWHUPIUDPHZRUNIRUIXWXUHJURZWK HVWDEOLVKWKH&LW\·VHLJKW\HDUKRXVLQJSODQIURPWRUHIOHFWLVVXHVLGHQWLILHG IURPFRPPXQLW\LQSXWDQGFKDQJHVLQ6WDWHODZDQGXSGDWHDOOHOHPHQWVRIWKH *HQHUDO3ODQLQFOXGLQJWKH/DQG8VHDQG&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ +RXVLQJ(FRQRPLF
'HYHORSPHQW
3XEOLF)DFLOLWLHV6HUYLFHVDQG,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
0RELOLW\
2SHQ6SDFH
3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ
(QYLURQPHQW
DQG+D]DUGVDQG6DIHW\HOHPHQWV7KHXSGDWHWR
WKH*HQHUDO3ODQZRXOGLQFOXGHEXWLVQRWOLPLWHGWRUHYLVLRQVWRSROLFLHVQDUUDWLYHV GDWDDQGILJXUHVWRUHIOHFWWKHQHZEXLOGRXWSHULRG7KH=RQLQJ&RGHZRXOGDOVREH DPHQGHGWRHQVXUHFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKH*HQHUDO3ODQ
LQFOXGLQJWKH+RXVLQJ
(OHPHQW

7UR\)XMLPRWR&LW\3ODQQHU
$XJXVW
3DJH
´3URYLGHDVDIHDQGUHOLDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWKDWVHUYHVDOOSHRSOHDQGUHVSHFWVWKHHQYLURQPHQWµ 7UDYHO'HPDQG$QDO\VLV
:LWKWKHHQDFWPHQWRI6HQDWH%LOO
6%
&DOWUDQVLVIRFXVHGRQPD[LPL]LQJHIILFLHQW
GHYHORSPHQWSDWWHUQVLQQRYDWLYHWUDYHOGHPDQGUHGXFWLRQVWUDWHJLHVDQG PXOWLPRGDOLPSURYHPHQWV)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQKRZ&DOWUDQVDVVHVVHV 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW6WXGLHVSOHDVHUHYLHZ&DOWUDQV·7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW6WXG\ *XLGH
OLQNͿ͘3OHDVHQRWHWKDWFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHODQGXVHSURMHFWVSURSRVHGQHDUDQG DGMDFHQWWRWKH6WDWH7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ1HWZRUN
671
PD\EHDVVHVVHGLQSDUWWKURXJK
WKH7,6*
$GGLWLRQDOO\&DOWUDQVUHTXHVWVWKDWWKH&LW\RI3OHDVDQW+LOO*HQHUDO3ODQ8SGDWHLV FRQVLVWHQWZLWK&DOLIRUQLD*RYHUQPHQW&RGH6HFWLRQ RQJHVWLRQ
0DQDJHPHQW
$VZHOOWKH&LW\LVUHTXHVWHGWRJDLQDGHWHUPLQDWLRQRIFRQIRUPLW\IURPWKH&RQWUD &RVWD7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$XWKRULW\WRGHWHUPLQHWKDWWKH&LW\RI3OHDVDQW+LOO*HQHUDO3ODQ 8SGDWHLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRQIRUPVWRWKH5HJLRQDO7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ3ODQ &RQVLVWHQF\5HTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH&RXQW\·V&RQJHVWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ &03

7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ,PSDFW)HHV
:HHQFRXUDJHDVXIILFLHQWDOORFDWLRQRIIDLUVKDUHFRQWULEXWLRQVWRZDUGPXOWLPRGDO DQGUHJLRQDOWUDQVLWLPSURYHPHQWVWRIXOO\PLWLJDWHFXPXODWLYHLPSDFWVWRUHJLRQDO WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ:HDOVRVWURQJO\VXSSRUWPHDVXUHVWRLQFUHDVHVXVWDLQDEOHPRGH VKDUHVWKHUHE\UHGXFLQJ9HKLFOH0LOHV7UDYHOHG
907
&DOWUDQVZHOFRPHVWKH
RSSRUWXQLW\WRZRUNZLWKWKH&LW\DQGORFDOSDUWQHUVWRVHFXUHWKHIXQGLQJIRUQHHGHG PLWLJDWLRQ7UDIILFPLWLJDWLRQRUFRRSHUDWLYHDJUHHPHQWVDUHH[DPSOHVRIVXFK PHDVXUHV
/HDG$JHQF\
$VWKH/HDG$JHQF\WKH&LW\RI3OHDVDQW+LOOLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOSURMHFWPLWLJDWLRQ LQFOXGLQJDQ\QHHGHGLPSURYHPHQWVWRWKH6717KHSURMHFW·VIDLUVKDUHFRQWULEXWLRQ ILQDQFLQJVFKHGXOLQJLPSOHPHQWDWLRQUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDQGOHDGDJHQF\PRQLWRULQJ VKRXOGEHIXOO\GLVFXVVHGIRUDOOSURSRVHGPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHV (TXLWDEOH$FFHVV ,IDQ\&DOWUDQVIDFLOLWLHVDUHLPSDFWHGE\WKHSURMHFWWKRVHIDFLOLWLHVPXVWPHHW $PHULFDQ'LVDELOLWLHV$FW
$'$
6WDQGDUGVDIWHUSURMHFWFRPSOHWLRQ$VZHOOWKH
SURMHFWPXVWPDLQWDLQELF\FOHDQGSHGHVWULDQDFFHVVGXULQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ7KHVH DFFHVVFRQVLGHUDWLRQVVXSSRUW&DOWUDQV·HTXLW\PLVVLRQWRSURYLGHDVDIHVXVWDLQDEOH DQGHTXLWDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNIRUDOOXVHUV
7UR\)XMLPRWR&LW\3ODQQHU
$XJXVW
3DJH
´3URYLGHDVDIHDQGUHOLDEOHWUDQVSRUWDWLRQQHWZRUNWKDWVHUYHVDOOSHRSOHDQGUHVSHFWVWKHHQYLURQPHQWµ 7KDQN\RXDJDLQIRULQFOXGLQJ&DOWUDQVLQWKHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZSURFHVV6KRXOG \RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKLVOHWWHURUIRUIXWXUHQRWLILFDWLRQVDQGUHTXHVWVIRU UHYLHZRIQHZSURMHFWVSOHDVHHPDLO/'5'#GRWFDJRY 6LQFHUHO\ 0$5./(21*
'LVWULFW%UDQFK&KLHI
/RFDO'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ
F
6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Norman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 3:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Development Concepts Mangini / Delu Sites
Hi Troy, a few concepts for the Mangini / Delu Site,
Thanks, Norm
2 3
Retail / Housing Mix
4 5
Incorporation of education/ housing and retail.
6 7
Mangini / Delu Plaza
8 9
European Comcept
10 11
Theater Venue.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Norman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 10:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Mangini / Delu Site
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Norman <[email protected]>
Date: July 21, 2022 at 10:39:37 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Mangini / Delu Site
July 21, 2022
Norman Vanhole
10 Wildwood Place
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523

City of Pleasant Hill Public Works and Community Development Departments 100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA. 94523
Att: Troy Fujimoto,
City Planner
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
Subject: Mangini /Delu Future Development
At which time a Site Specific EIR is to be prepared, please request the Preparer to address the following Alternate concept for the above referenced site.
1) Pleasant Hill is now more than ever a
city that relies on sale tax revenue to
pay its’ expenses.

The Mangini / Delu properties are an
ideal site for a Mixed Use Development,
2 including Retail space and housing
opportunities and with the addition of
the PH Park & Recreation District
parcel would be an ideal addition for
the use of the Pleasant Hill community
and others.

A Plan such as was proposed prior to
the now Developed CarMax site which
was submitted as the Campus Site Plan,
with modification would be ideal for
this site.
2) This plan had a reasonable mix of
apartments, housing and retail, etc.

Mangini / Delu site could not be more
suitable for such a development as that
of Campus Site Plan, which had a
suggested use of a Whole Foods Store
as an anchor, followed by other retail
uses, mixed use of housing an
apartments and offices mixed in with
the retail tenants. The plan also
included upgrading the existing park
and the addition of bike and pedestrian
trails along a section of the perimeter of
the development.
( I knew Lou Mangini for many years
and served with him on the PH Planning
Commission and this was the sort of a
development he envisioned for the
“Mangini Ranch”).
3) The development of the Mangini /
Delu site could carry on the tradition by
have a “tractional” Produce Stand”
incorporate in it.

Please ask the City to retrieve the file
for the DVC Campus Site Plan and
submit it to the EIR preparer for,
hopefully review for a more appropriate
Site Specific Development Plan for the
Mangini / Delu site than high density
“cooker cutter” housing.

Also I might add, the alternate
suggested above will bring in more sales
tax revenue to our City in the long run.

Sincerely,
3 Norman Vanhole, former Pleasant Hill
City Planning Commissioner
Ph:925 933 5977
Photo (CSP) send in separate E mail.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Norm Scheel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:15 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Housing Element- Pleasant Hill
Attachments: Pleasant Hill- Proposed for Housing Element.pdf Good Afternoon,
I was curious if there is a revised or final Summary of Proposed Housing sites available? The attached is from GPAC #15 and I see from the City website GPAC 19 is schedule for June 29, 2022.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing back.

Norman Scheel
Principal
The Hoffman Company
18881 Von Karman Ave
Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 553-2020 ext. 232
(949) 705-0932 Direct
(949) 553-8449 Fax
(714) 325-8246 Mobile
DRE # 00999403
www.hoffmanland.com
DRE #01473762
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
1 A. DVC Overflow Parking Lot
Size 5 acres of 11-acre site
Proposed Designation Mixed Use Very High
Assumed density 70 - 100 du/ac (70 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 350 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Potential for increased density (designation changed to Mixed Use Very High)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
2 D. Mangini-Delu Area
Size 25.90 acres
Assumed densities 4.8 du/ac (eastern section)

8.3 du/ac (northern section)

21.0 du/ac (southern section)
Housing Units 51 units (eastern section)
81 units (northern section)
85 units (southern section)
210 total units
(assumes 7 houses removed)
Issues • Includes existing homes
• Will require program for relocation
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• East section to SF High Density
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
3 E. JFK University
Size 4.87 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use Very High Density
Assumed density 70 - 100 du/ac (70 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 243 units
Issues • Directly adjacent to highway
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider 70-100 du/ac MU on this site
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
4 F. ACE Hardware
Size 1.53 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 53 units
Issues • Removed 1530 Contra Costa Blvd. based on owner request (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Extend site area north to include Tap Plastics site
(acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
5 G. Gregory Gardens
Size 3.59 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 126 units
Issues • Shallow site
• Existing active uses
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Review lease agreements
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
6 I. Pleasant Hill/Gregory Lane Intersection
Size 4.93 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 172 units
Issues • Walgreens and 7-11 sites removed based on owner requests (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider sites south of Gregory and select sites within this area (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
• Consider 40-70 du/ac MU designation for this site
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
7 J. Gregory Lane/Contra Costa Boulevard Intersection
Size 7.07 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 247 units
Issues • 1817 Contra Costa Boulevard removed based on owner request (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC
Recommendation
• Keep in inventory
• Extend the focus area boundary north to Caspers
(acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
• Potential site for brewery or brew pub
• Consider 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use

GREGORY LANE
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
8 K. Jewel Lane Neighborhood
Size 1.82 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 58 total units (assumes 7 houses removed) Issues • Includes existing homes
• Will require program to address family relocation
• 2571 and 2583 Jewel Lane removed based on letters from owners (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Expand the focus area to Include the L-shaped building to the east (acreage has been adjusted accordingly)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
9 M. Monument Triangle Area
Size 4.5 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 159 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Exclude mobile home park (acreage has been adjusted
accordingly)
City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
10 N. Former JC Penny Furniture Store
Size 5.75 acres
Proposed Designation Mixed Use High Density
Assumed density 40 - 70 du/ac (49 du/ac assumed)
Housing Units 232 units
Issues
GPAC Recommendation • Keep in inventory
• Consider to 40-70 du/ac Mixed Use in this area.

City of Pleasant Hill – GPAC #15
Attachment A – Summary of Proposed Housing Sites
11 Summary of Opportunity Sites by GPAC Recommended Land Use Designation Acres
Dwelling Units Income
Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Category
Residential
Single-Family Low Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod
Single-Family Medium Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod Single-Family High Density 11.33 44.00 7.00 51 Above Mod Multi-Family Very Low Density 10.32 57.00 24.00 81 Above Mod Multi-Family Low Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Above Mod
Multi-Family Medium Density 4.25 0.00 85.00 85 Above Mod Multi-Family High Density 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Commercial and Mixed-Use
Commercial and Retail 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 n/a
Mixed Use 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Mixed Use Neighborhood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Moderate
Mixed Use High Density 30.14 0.00 1,052.00 1,052 Lower
Mixed Use Very High Density 15.86 0.00 593.00 593 Lower Total 71.90 101.00 1761.00 1862
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Bushra Toma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: General Plan-EIR
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

I would ask that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, I would also ask the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Thanks for your continued participation in the process and we will alert you when we get more meeting specifics.

Bushra Toma
Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Judy Q-Orpin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 8:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini/Delu property development
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Sincerely,
Judy Geringer
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Sean Grech <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 8:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: City plan
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Sincerely,
Sean Grech
Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Pamela Reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 4:27 PM
To: [email protected]
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Thanks for your continued participation in the process and we will alert you when we get more meeting specifics.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Leslie Trejo
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Leslie Trejo
Subject: FW: [EXT] FW: Mangini/Delu Site, Pleasant Hill From: Eileen Mascaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto <[email protected]>
Subject: Mangini/Delu Site, Pleasant Hill
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Eileen Mascaro, a 51-year resident of Erin Court, Pleasant Hill.

1 Leslie Trejo
From: Pete Sabine (925) 787-2548 <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 8:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: General Plan Update - EIR Scoping - letter attached Attachments: General Plan Update - EIR Scoping.pdf
Troy Fujimoto,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed City of Pleasant Hill General Plan Update. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in Pleasant Hill. I am asking the City of Pleasant Hill to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

I am asking that the City of Pleasant Hill preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, I am also asking the City of Pleasant Hill to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, I expect the City of Pleasant Hill to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Respectfully,
Pete Sabine
219 Apollo Way
Pleasant Hill
925.787.2548
[email protected]
:ƵůǇϮϲ͕ϮϬϮϮ
dƌŽǇ&ƵũŝŵŽƚŽ
WƌŽũĞĐƚWůĂŶŶĞƌ
ŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůů
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
/ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůů'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶhƉĚĂƚĞ͘tŚŝůĞ/ ƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕/ŚĂǀĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘ /ĂŵĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶŽĨŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĂŶĚ ŐƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞŐĂƐĞƐŝŶWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůů͘/ĂŵĂƐŬŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂďĂƐĞůŝŶĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ ƐƵƌǀĞǇĨŽƌĂůůŵĂũŽƌƐƚƌĞĞƚƐĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŶĞǁĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŽĂǀŽŝĚŽƌŵŝƚŝŐĂƚĞ ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĚĞƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘
/ĂŵĂƐŬŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞĂŶĚďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůůǇƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚƐ͕ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇĐƌĞĞŬĐŽƌƌŝĚŽƌƐ͘ƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐ͕/ĂŵĂůƐŽĂƐŬŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨ WůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂĚĚŝŶŐ ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬƐƉĂĐĞĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽĞŶũŽǇ
>ĂƐƚůǇ͕/ĞǆƉĞĐƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůůƚŽŚŽŶŽƌŝƚƐƉůĞĚŐĞƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĂDĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞ DĂŶŐŝŶŝͬĞůƵƐŝƚĞĂŶĚƚŽŚŽŶŽƌŝƚƐĐŽŵŵŝƚŵĞŶƚƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĨŽƌĂĐĂƉŽŶƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐĂůůŽǁĞĚ͕ĂůŝŵŝƚŽŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚĞŝŐŚƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕Ă ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚŽĨĨͲƐƚƌĞĞƚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐƉŝůůͲŽǀĞƌƚŽĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ͕ ĐƌĞĞŬƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĚĞƚĞƌŝŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨůŽǁ͘ ZĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵ
WĞƚĞ^ĂďŝŶĞ
ϮϭϵƉŽůůŽtĂǇ
WůĞĂƐĂŶƚ,ŝůů
ϵϮϱ͘ϳϴϳ͘Ϯϱϰ
WĞƚĞΛWĞƚĞ^ĂďŝŶĞ͘Đ
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Shereen Motarjemi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 3:57 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: GP comment
Mr. Fujimoto,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I am asking the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

I am asking that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, I am also asking the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient offstreet parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Shereen Motarjemi
100 Mercury Way
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Catherine Boccellari <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment to the Proposed General Plan
Mr. Fujimoto,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Best,
Catherine Boccellari
Pleasant Hill resident
1 Leslie Trejo
From: John Walter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 12:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pleasant Hill, CA General Plan Meeting Comment Dear Pleasant Hill Mayor, Council Members, General Plan Committee, and Housing Element Committee,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed Pleasant Hill, CA General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns about the currently developed General Plan. I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic, parking, open space and emissions in the City.

I would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future. As part of this, I would also ask the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

In keeping with the existing character of the City, I would ask that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors.

In summary, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow and an effort to limit emissions.

Best Regards,
John
John S. Walter
240 Linda Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
M - 925-457-9092
e-mail - [email protected]
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Storey / Gianakos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 1:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Future Mancini Property Development
Hello Mr Fujimoto,
I am a long time resident in the strip between Al Lippincott’s vineyard and Louis Mangini’s property. After Dr.

Lippincott’s death, it was agreed with the developer not to open Malaga Way to through traffic. This has turned out to be a great benefit to the neighborhood. I wish to make the same case for not opening the other end of Malaga into the Mangini property. The preservation of minimal traffic circulation has contributed to pedestrian safety as we have no sidewalks and limited night time illumination.

I remember some years ago, on another issue, complimenting you for being a conscientious civil servant. I trust you are still that same person.

Most sincerely, Nick Gianakos, 19 Tokay Ct.
1 Leslie Trejo
From: David Blau <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Cc: Bruce Irion; Annette Gelinas; Shereen Motarjemi
Subject: Comments on the Proposed General Plan & Upcoming EIR Hello Troy & Planning Commission:

I will be making specific comments Tuesday night regarding the scope & content of the upcoming Draft EIR. Below are related concerns regarding the Draft General Plan:

We are writing to provide comment on the proposed General Plan. While we recognize the need for further housing development, we have several serious concerns.

We are concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic levels, congestion, & greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the City. We ask that the City establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future. We also would like to see a calculation of additional vehicles miles traveled (VMT) for each candidate site under consideration.

We ask that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, we also ask the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, we expect the City to honor its pledge to prepare a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address residents’ concerns for a cap or upper limit on the number of units allowed; a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods; a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods; creek preservation across the entire site; and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow at all nearby intersections.

David & Jennifer Blau
75 Exeter Lane
Pleasant Hill, Ca. (family resides @ Victoria Crossings for 42 yrs) [email protected]
(c) 925-381-4839
1 Leslie Trejo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini-Delu property
Dear City Council and City Planners of Pleasant Hill:,
As a resident / homeowner living very near Mangini’s for over 60 years, I am concerned that this issue will not get the full attention and time needed to assure us residents that it is done correctly and not pushed through swiftly.

I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Lastly, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Thank you for your time and effort,
Lesley
Lesley Stiles
Chef / Owner Roxx on Main
[email protected]
www.roxxonmain.com
925 370 ROXX (7699)
Real Food. Cocktails. Wine. Great Music
We Cater All Occasions
925 323 3230 cell
www.lesleystilesfoods.com
Do You Know Where Your Food Comes From?
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Jim Whitsett <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:09 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Shereen Motarjemi; David Blau; Lenore Krause; Bruce Irion Subject: Planning Commission EIR Scoping Meeting: Public Comment on General Plan Troy F. and Members of the 'Planning' Commission:

Reference our email to you of May 15, 2022 SUBJ: Mangini/Delu Property Development We are writing once again to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While we recognize the need for further housing development, we have several concerns.

We remain concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and resultant increases in greenhouse gases in the City. We would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

We also would ask that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, we would also ask the City to consider adding additional open park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, we expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Time for the 'Planning' Commission to start listening to the citizens regarding LOCAL ZONING OPTIONS. Thank You.

Jim and Sally Whitsett
598 Maureen Ln
Pleasant Hill
PH RESIDENTS SINCE 1993
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Lisa Hutchinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:57 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: plan
I am writing to provide a comment on the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

John and Lisa Hutchinson
267 Apollo Way
PH, CA 94523
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Debbie Cotton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 2:04 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Responsible development in Pleasant Hill
Dear Mr. Fujimoto,
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Sincerely,
Debbie Cotton
Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Karen Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 8:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini/Delu site
I would like to offer my input on regards to the proposed General Plan. I realize there is a need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic in the City. I would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

Thank you for your time,
1 Leslie Trejo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 6:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comments to General Plan (Mangini/Delu and the Environmental Impact Report) We are writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

We are concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. We are asking the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration int he future.

We are asking that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, we are also asking the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, we expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

City Council members voted to preserve "flexibility" for future evaluation and revisions to the existing General Plan. Flexibility is an open-ended scenario with the potential of drastically changing the character of adjacent existing neighborhoods along with burdening our already over-crowded roads. High density housing projects belong near public transit and major highways designed to handle the impact of large scale development.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

Regards,
Alice and Jeff Smith
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Amy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: comments on proposed General Plan from a resident As a Pleasant Hill resident of over 23 years, I am providing comments on the proposed General Plan. I have several concerns while also recognizing the need for housing development. My first concern is that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I am asking the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate their impact on traffic flow. My second concern is that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, I am also asking the City to consider adding additional park or open space for residents to enjoy and for the preservation of natural resources for native plants and animals to continue to use. My third concern is that the City honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site. I request that the city honor its commitment to address resident concerns for:
 a cap on the number of housing units allowed,
 a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods,  a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods,  specific plans to preserve the creek on the property (including measures to protect the native plants and animals which use the creek), and
 traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Best regards,
Amy Arcus-Arth
3 Dublin Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
1 Leslie Trejo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 12:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: NOP Comment: 2040 General Plan EIR
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Bruce Irion
265 Linda Ln, PH
1 Leslie Trejo
From: DARREN HALL <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 10:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini
As a thirty year Pleasant Hill resident, and homeowner in the Valley High area, I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Lastly, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Sincerely,
Darren C. Hall
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Leslie Trejo
From: David Blau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Written Comments on the CEQA Scoping Process
Good morning, Troy. Here are my written comments on the CEQA Scoping Process. Please provide these to the members of the Planning Commission overseeing the preparation of the EIR on the General Plan as well as to your environmental consultant, RINCON.

Comments:

1. The Notice of Preparation was as thin as one could be. No description of the proposed action nor characterization of the alternatives was provided. The list of potential impact topics was the standard list of 18 with no distinction of what might be relevant to this EIR. Why list so many non-environmental impact topics? It just confuses the public. As a result, you have not given the agencies and general public anything to react to and comment on.

2. We are told that there will not be a Scoping Report issued, which means we have to wait until early 2023 to see how our comments during Scoping might be addressed. Typically a Scoping Report is prepared early in the EIR process so that stakeholders can see how the EIR consultant will be addressing their comments during the preparation of the Draft EIR.

3. The NOP makes no mention of the “reasonable range of alternatives” required by CEQA. The 2003 General Plan presented three alternative “themes” in the Alternatives Chapter: (1) economic intensification, (2) residential infill, and (3) reduced density. You have given us no indication of what alternatives might be presented in this EIR and how this might be helpful in arriving at the preferred action.

4. We would like to see a thorough analysis of the “No Action Alternative”, also mandated by CEQA, and the consequences to the CIty if no action is taken. During numerous GPAC hearings, the CIty has said that if an aggressive housing program is not implemented within the next eight years, the State can withhold funding for various programs and can even take over implementation of the housing program. We haven’t seen any evidence of this taking place.

Please describe this scenario in detail.

5. We want to see a detailed analysis of traffic and GHG impacts along with proposed mitigation measures to lessen impacts. This is perhaps the most serious impact of all. We want to see analysis of the “Level of Service” (LOS) at nearby intersections for each proposed housing site and do not want to see degradation of LOS with increased wait times and massive congestion. We want to see calculations of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for each proposed housing site, examining likely distances to work and shopping.

6. Lastly, CEQA requires the identification of the “Environmentally Superior Alternative”. We are especially interested in seeing this analysis, understanding the basis for this distinction, and whether the City intends to select this alternative or not.

Thank you,
David Blau
75 Exeter Lane
Victoria Crossing resident w family for 42 years Pleasant Hill, Ca. 2 Sent from my iPhone
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Marian Crompton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 9:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini/Delu property
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

Lastly, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient offstreet parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow 1 Leslie Trejo
From: Martin Gibb <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 7:56 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: General Plan Comments
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on resources (i.e. water), traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

Martin Gibb
Pleasant Hill Resident
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Karen Panico <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 7:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: General Plan Comments
I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns.

I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on resources (water), traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I would ask the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future.

Karen Panico
Pleasant Hill Resident
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Alan Bade <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 5:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comments on GP NOP EIR Scope
Attachments: 50 - Year Plan 3-20-09 BOS compressed.PDF
Dear Planning Commission,
I'm writing to follow up on our verbal comments during the scoping session for the new General Plan EIR. In our comments, we advocated for the City to incorporate the Contra Costa Flood Control Agency's "50 Year Plan" into the new GP. This plan provides a roadmap for a new way of looking at flood control, one that favors restoration to more natural creeks whenever possible. As we develop the last remaining vacant lands in Pleasant Hill, the principles articulated in the document will make for a much better outcome.

The "50 Year Plan" specifically mentions that the principles should be included into new General Plans as they get updated. Pleasant Hill has creek sections that could greatly benefit from this new approach. It will be beneficial to add policies and goals in support of it.

Attached is a copy of the document for the Planning Commission, the GPAC Committee, and the GP consultants to review, plus a link to the CC Flood Control Agency document page where it is found: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/5745/Documents-and-Standards Thank you, Alan Bade
Pleasant Hill resident
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Cindy Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 5:23 PM
To: Troy Fujimoto
Subject: Mangini/Delau Development on tonight's agenda
Hello Troy and the PH Planning Dept.- I apologize for the lateness of this email regarding tonight's meeting.

I am writing because I am at a loss to understand how customers of CCWD are being told to reduce our water usage by 15%, but there is apparently enough water for new homes in the area. That is a huge concern, as well as the traffic impact and loss of open space.

I hope that whatever the planning dept decides, it is done to comply with the goals of the PH Master Plan and the recognition of our limited resources in CA.

Thank you,
Cindy Rubin
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Cindy Rubin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 5:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Mangini Farms Development on Agenda 7/26/22
Hello PH Planning Dept.- I apologize for the lateness of this email regarding tonight's meeting.

I hope that whatever the planning dept decides, it is done to comply with the goals of the PH Master Plan and the recognition of our limited resources in CA.

Thank you,
Cindy Rubin
1 Leslie Trejo
From: Katie Hindt <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 4:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Magnini/Delu site
Dear City of Pleasant Hill:

I am writing to provide comment to the proposed General Plan. While I recognize the need for further housing development, I have several concerns. I am concerned that the proposed addition of housing will have a significant impact on traffic and greenhouse gases in the City. I am asking the City to establish a baseline traffic survey for all major streets and intersections and require new development to avoid or mitigate significant deterioration in the future. I am asking that the City preserve open space and biologically sensitive habitats, particularly creek corridors. As part of this, I am also asking the City to consider adding additional park space for residents to enjoy.

Lastly, I expect the City to honor its pledge to conduct a Master Plan for the Mangini/Delu site and to honor its commitment to address resident concerns for a cap on the number of housing units allowed, a limit on building height consistent with surrounding neighborhoods, a requirement to provide sufficient off-street parking to prevent spill-over to adjacent neighborhoods, creek preservation, and traffic mitigation to prevent significant deterioration of traffic flow.

Best regards,
Katie Hindt
1955 Rose Ln, PH
David Blau
- Focus on LU, POP, GHG, TRA as most concerned to him
- Range of alternatives or themes that will be evaluated - Full analysis of no project and consequences to the city - Detailed analysis of GHG and TRA impacts. Mitigation for each housing site - VMT for each site that assumes distances to jobs and shopping and importantly, LOS Mangini/Delu deleted from HE because of concerns from neighbors and a promise of a Master Plan. Why is it still in LU? -
- Summarize schedule
Bruce Irion
- Recognize need for housing
- TRA and GHG are most concerning - Review of traffic intersections - Habitat and wildlife preservation and wildlife shows up in unexpected places GP provisions preserve OS and parks but largely deal with new development and not so much maintenance and redevelopment
○ What the impact of the GP would be on wildlife OS - Parks and OS - no new parks or OS. Existing are well utilized but new development would increase use of those parks. EIR should look at parks and OS. Consider adding new areas - Alan Bade - Cofounder of Grayson Creek group - Add to scope of GP is recognition that we as a City fit in the context of the entire watershed CC county has adopted 50 year plan for infrastructure replacement as it becomes outdated. Reads excerpt of plan
-
- Would like to see study in the EIR - Watershed plan - participating in development. Urges PH to participate Wendy Gollop
- Plan deals with returning creeks to a more native state. Deals with watersheds Rezoning quite a bit to multi-use and mixed-use which includes commercial and neighborhoods living close to each other. -
- Deal with a lot of truck idling and emissions from that and noise GP will look more at truck traffic and commercial vehicles including pollution. Delivery schedules to new developing mixed use groups in close proximity to where people will live -
- Noise being close to commercial areas - OS, particularly in the south, there isn't enough in the area. Ability to acquire more open space - Light pollution to creeks, parks, and OS. Will affect migratory birds Chadwick Wyler
- Esp interested in 50 year plan for creeks. A lot of concrete line. - Can we restore creeks? - Flood management potential? - How much damage done to it? Allen Vinson
- Creek in the backyard
- The better the habitat, the more natural wildlife in the area Celia Chiang
Scoping Meeting Comments
Tuesday, July 26, 2022 6:45 PM
Pleasant Hill Page 1
Celia Chiang
- Transportation Element timing?
Alex Khalfin
- Keeping an eye on transportation
Bike and Ped plan will go to council in September meeting. Viewing online of draft will be available before traffic safety commission meeting and council
Pleasant Hill Page 2
Appendix B
Special Status Species Tables
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat Requirements
Plants and Lichens
Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, coastal bluff
scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Elevations:
10-1640ft. (3-500m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Arctostaphylos auriculata
Mt. Diablo manzanita
None/None
G2/S2
1B.3
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland. In canyons and on slopes.

On sandstone. Elevations: 445-2135ft. (135-
650m.) Blooms Jan-Mar.

Arctostaphylos manzanita
ssp. laevigata
Contra Costa manzanita
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral. Rocky
slopes. Elevations: 1410-3610ft. (430-1100m.)
Blooms Jan-Mar(Apr).

Arctostaphylos pallida
pallid manzanita
FT/SCE
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest, coastal scrub. Grows on uplifted marine terraces on siliceous shale or thin
chert. May require fire. Elevations: 605-1525ft.
(185-465m.) Blooms Dec-Mar.

Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Playas, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Alkaline. Elevations: 5-195ft. (1-
60m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Blepharizonia plumosa
big tarplant
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Clay
(usually). Elevations: 100-1655ft. (30-505m.)
Blooms Jul-Oct.

Calochortus pulchellus
Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. On wooded and brushy
slopes. Elevations: 100-2755ft. (30-840m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.

Campanula exigua
chaparral harebell
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral. Rocky sites, usually on
serpentine in chaparral. Elevations: 900-4100ft.
(275-1250m.) Blooms May-Jun.

Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
None/None
G3T1T2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland.

Alkaline soils sometimes described as heavy
white clay. Elevations: 0-755ft. (0-230m.) Blooms
May-Oct(Nov).

Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
None/None
G4?T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Marshes and
swamps. Usually in coastal salt marsh with
Salicornia, Distichlis, Jaumea, Spartina, etc.

Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.

Chloropyron molle ssp. molle
soft salty bird's-beak
FE/SCR
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Marshes and
swamps. In coastal salt marsh with Distichlis,
Salicornia, Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-
3m.) Blooms Jun-Nov.

Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
robust spineflower
FE/None
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Gravelly
(sometimes), sandy (sometimes). Elevations: 10-
985ft. (3-300m.) Blooms Apr-Sep.

Cicuta maculata var.
bolanderi
Bolander's water-hemlock
None/None
G5T4T5/S2?
2B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In fresh or
brackish water. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.)
Blooms Jul-Sep.

Cirsium andrewsii
Franciscan thistle
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest,
coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal scrub.

Mesic, serpentinite (sometimes). Elevations: 0-
490ft. (0-150m.) Blooms Mar-Jul.

Clarkia franciscana
Presidio clarkia
FE/SCE
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Serpentine outcrops in grassland or
scrub. Elevations: 80-1100ft. (25-335m.) Blooms
May-Jul.

Cordylanthus nidularius
Mt. Diablo bird's-beak
None/SCR
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Chaparral. Grassy or
rocky areas within serpentine chaparral.

Elevations: 1970-2625ft. (600-800m.) Blooms
Jun-Aug.

Delphinium californicum ssp.
interius
Hospital Canyon larkspur
None/None
G3T3/S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub. In wet, boggy
meadows, openings in chaparral and in canyons.

Elevations: 640-3595ft. (195-1095m.) Blooms
Apr-Jun.

Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland. On
brushy slopes, mesic sites; mostly in mixed
evergreen and foothill woodland communities.

Elevations: 80-1395ft. (25-425m.) Blooms JanMar(Apr).

Eriastrum ertterae
Lime Ridge eriastrum
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral. Openings or edges;
alkaline or semi-alkaline, sandy. Elevations: 655-
950ft. (200-290m.) Blooms Jun-Jul.

Eriogonum luteolum var.
caninum
Tiburon buckwheat
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland.

Serpentine soils; sandy to gravelly sites.

Elevations: 0-2295ft. (0-700m.) Blooms May-Sep.

Eriogonum truncatum
Mt. Diablo buckwheat
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Dry, exposed clay or sandy
substrates. Elevations: 10-1150ft. (3-350m.)
Blooms Apr-Sep(Nov-Dec).

Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote-thistle
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Clay. Elevations: 10-985ft. (3-
300m.) Blooms Apr-Aug.

Erysimum capitatum var.
angustatum
Contra Costa wallflower
FE/SCE
G5T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Inland dunes. Stabilized dunes of
sand and clay near Antioch along the San Joaquin
River. Elevations: 10-65ft. (3-20m.) Blooms MarJul.

Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, meadows and
seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland. In
seasonal alkali wetlands or alkali sink scrub with
Distichlis spicata, Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 5-
2740ft. (1-835m.) Blooms Apr-Oct.

Fissidens pauperculus
minute pocket moss
None/None
G3?/S2
1B.2
Moss. North coast coniferous forest. Moss
growing on damp soil along the coast. In dry
streambeds and on-stream banks. Elevations: 35-
3360ft. (10-1024m.)
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane
woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland. Often on serpentine,
various soils reported though usually on clay, in
grassland. Elevations: 10-1345ft. (3-410m.)
Blooms Feb-Apr.

Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Coastal dunes. Elevations: 5-100ft.
(2-30m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

Grimmia torenii
Toren's grimmia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.3
Moss. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Openings, rocky,
boulder and rock walls, serpentine, volcanic.

Elevations: 1065-3805ft. (325-1160m.)
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

Azonal soils, Partial shade (often), rocky (usually).

Elevations: 195-4265ft. (60-1300m.) Blooms MarJun.

Hesperolinon breweri
Brewer's western flax
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Often in rocky
serpentine soil in serpentine chaparral and
serpentine grassland. Elevations: 100-3100ft.
(30-945m.) Blooms May-Jul.

Hoita strobilina
Loma Prieta hoita
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian woodland. Serpentine; mesic
sites. Elevations: 100-2820ft. (30-860m.) Blooms
May-Jul(Aug-Oct).

Holocarpha macradenia
Santa Cruz tarplant
FT/SCE
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley
and foothill grassland. Light, sandy soil or sandy
clay; often with nonnatives. Elevations: 35-720ft.
(10-220m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.

Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
None/None
G4T1?/S1?
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal dunes, coastal scrub.

Old dunes, coastal sandhills; openings. Sandy or
gravelly soils. Elevations: 35-655ft. (10-200m.)
Blooms Apr-Sep.

Isocoma arguta
Carquinez goldenbush
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial shrub. Valley and foothill grassland.

Alkaline soils, flats, lower hills. On low benches
near drainages and on tops and sides of mounds
in swale habitat. Elevations: 5-65ft. (1-20m.)
Blooms Aug-Dec.

Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, playas,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Vernal
pools, swales, low depressions, in open grassy
areas. Elevations: 0-1540ft. (0-470m.) Blooms
Mar-Jun.

Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
Delta tule pea
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In
freshwater and brackish marshes. Often found
with Typha, Aster lentus, Rosa californica, Juncus
spp., Scirpus, etc. Usually on marsh and slough
edges. Elevations: 0-15ft. (0-5m.) Blooms MayJul(Aug-Sep).

Lilaeopsis masonii
Mason's lilaeopsis
None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and
swamps, riparian scrub. Tidal zones, in muddy or
silty soil formed through river deposition or river
bank erosion. In brackish or freshwater.

Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Apr-Nov.

Limosella australis
Delta mudwort
None/None
G4G5/S2
2B.1
Perennial stoloniferous herb. Marshes and
swamps, riparian scrub. Usually on mud banks of
the Delta in marshy or scrubby riparian
associations; often with Lilaeopsis masonii.

Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms May-Aug.

Madia radiata
showy golden madia
None/None
G3/S3
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Mostly on adobe clay in
grassland or among shrubs. Elevations: 80-
3985ft. (25-1215m.) Blooms Mar-May.

Malacothamnus hallii
Hall's bush-mallow
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral, coastal
scrub. Some populations on serpentine.

Elevations: 35-2495ft. (10-760m.) Blooms
(Apr)May-Sep(Oct).

Meconella oregana
Oregon meconella
None/None
G2G3/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Open,
moist places. Elevations: 820-2035ft. (250-
620m.) Blooms Mar-Apr.

Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, north coast
coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland.

Grassy sites, in openings; sandy to rocky soils.

Often seen on serpentine after burns but may
have only weak affinity to serpentine. Elevations:
330-3935ft. (100-1200m.) Blooms (Feb)Mar-Jul.

Navarretia gowenii
Lime Ridge navarretia
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral. On calcium carbonaterich soil with high clay content. Elevations: 590- 1000ft. (180-305m.) Blooms May-Jun.

Oenothera deltoides ssp.
howellii
Antioch Dunes eveningprimrose
FE/SCE
G5T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Inland dunes. Remnant river
bluffs and sand dunes east of Antioch.

Elevations: 0-100ft. (0-30m.) Blooms Mar-Sep.

Phacelia phacelioides
Mt. Diablo phacelia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Adjacent to trails, on rock outcrops and talus
slopes; sometimes on serpentine. Elevations:
1640-4495ft. (500-1370m.) Blooms Apr-May.

Plagiobothrys diffusus
San Francisco popcornflower
None/SCE
G1Q/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal prairie, valley and foothill
grassland. Historically from grassy slopes with
marine influence. Elevations: 195-1180ft. (60-
360m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle
None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral, coastal prairie,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland. Moist clay or ultramafic soils.

Elevations: 100-785ft. (30-240m.) Blooms FebMay.

Sanicula saxatilis
rock sanicle
None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Bedrock
outcrops and talus slopes in chaparral or oak
woodland habitat. Elevations: 2035-3855ft. (620-
1175m.) Blooms Apr-May.

Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
None/None
G3/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Drying alkaline flats. Elevations:
50-2625ft. (15-800m.) Blooms Jan-Apr(May).

Spergularia macrotheca var.
longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps. Alkaline. Elevations: 0-835ft. (0-
255m.) Blooms Feb-May.

Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus
most beautiful jewelflower
None/None
G2T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Serpentine
outcrops, on ridges and slopes. Elevations: 310-
3280ft. (95-1000m.) Blooms (Mar)Apr-Sep(Oct).

Streptanthus hispidus
Mt. Diablo jewelflower
None/None
G2/S2
1B.3
Annual herb. Chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland. Talus or rocky outcrops. Elevations:
1200-3935ft. (365-1200m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
northern slender pondweed
None/None
G5T5/S2S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic). Marshes
and swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and
drainage channels. Elevations: 985-7055ft. (300-
2150m.) Blooms May-Jul.

Symphyotrichum lentum
Suisun Marsh aster
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and
swamps. Most often seen along sloughs with
Phragmites, Scirpus, blackberry, Typha, etc.

Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Nov.

Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Marshes and swamps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline
sites. Elevations: 0-985ft. (0-300m.) Blooms AprJun.

Triquetrella californica
coastal triquetrella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Moss. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Grows
within 30m from the coast in coastal scrub,
grasslands and in open gravels on roadsides,
hillsides, rocky slopes, and fields. On gravel or
thin soil over outcrops. Elevations: 35-330ft. (10-
100m.)
Tropidocarpum capparideum
caper-fruited tropidocarpum
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland.

Alkaline clay. Elevations: 5-1495ft. (1-455m.)
Blooms Mar-Apr.

Viburnum ellipticum
oval-leaved viburnum
None/None
G4G5/S3?
2B.3
Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Elevations: 705-4595ft. (215-
1400m.) Blooms May-Jun.

Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservatio
Conservancy fairy shrimp
FE/None
G2/S2
Endemic to the grasslands of the northern twothirds of the Central Valley; found in large, turbid pools. Inhabit astatic pools located in swales
formed by old, braided alluvium; filled by
winter/spring rains, last until June.

Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/None
G3/S3
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South Coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit
small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools
and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow
depression pools.

Danaus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California
overwintering population
FC/None
G4T2T3/S2S3
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.

Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine, cypress), with
nectar and water sources nearby.

Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly
FT/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of
serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco
Bay. Plantago erecta is the primary host plant;
Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. purpurscens are
the secondary host plants.

Lepidurus packardi
vernal pool tadpole shrimp
FE/None
G4/S3S4
Inhabits vernal pools and swales in the
Sacramento Valley containing clear to highly
turbid water. Pools commonly found in grassbottomed swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are mud-bottomed and highly turbid.

Speyeria callippe callippe
callippe silverspot butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to the northern coastal scrub of the
San Francisco peninsula. Hostplant is Viola
pedunculata. Most adults found on E-facing
slopes; males congregate on hilltops in search of
females.

Fish
Archoplites interruptus
Sacramento perch
None/None
G2G3/S1
SSC
Historically found in the sloughs, slow-moving
rivers, and lakes of the Central Valley. Prefers
warm water. Aquatic vegetation is essential for
young. Tolerates wide range of physio-chemical
water conditions.

Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
FE/None
G3/S3
Brackish water habitats along the California coast
from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County
to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in
shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, they
need still but not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels.

Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 11
steelhead - Central Valley DPS
FT/None
G5T2Q/S2
Populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers and their tributaries.

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Sacramento splittail
None/None
GNR/S3
SSC
Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central
Valley, but now confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay
and associated marshes. Slow moving river
sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded
vegetation for spawning and foraging for young.

Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
FC/ST
G5/S1
Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found in
open waters of estuaries, mostly in middle or
bottom of water column. Prefer salinities of 15-
30 ppt but can be found in completely
freshwater to almost pure seawater.

Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
pop. 1
California tiger salamander -
central California DPS
FT/ST
G2G3/S3
WL
Lives in vacant or mammal-occupied burrows
throughout most of the year; in grassland,
savanna, or open woodland habitats. Need
underground refuges, especially ground squirrel
burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal
water sources for breeding.

Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
None/SE
G3/S3
SSC
Partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a
rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at
least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying.

Needs at least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent
sources of deep water with dense, shrubby, or
emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20
weeks of permanent water for larval
development. Must have access to estivation
habitat.

Reptiles
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless
lizard
None/None
G3/S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse
vegetation. Soil moisture is essential. They prefer
soils with a high moisture content.

Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation.

Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or
grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km
from water for egg-laying.

Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake
FT/ST
G4T2/S2
Typically found in chaparral and scrub habitats
but will also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna,
and woodland habitats. Mostly south-facing
slopes and ravines, with rock outcrops, deep
crevices, or abundant rodent burrows, where
shrubs form a vegetative mosaic with oak trees
and grasses.

Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
None/None
G3G4/S3S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most
common in lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial,
and abundant supply of ants and other insects.

Thamnophis gigas
giant gartersnake
FT/ST
G2/S2
Prefers freshwater marsh and low gradient
streams. Has adapted to drainage canals and
irrigation ditches. This is the most aquatic of the
gartersnakes in California.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted, or
marginal type. Nest sites mainly in riparian
growths of deciduous trees, as in canyon
bottoms on river floodplains; also, live oaks.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S1S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the colony.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3
FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper
flats, and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide
nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large
trees in open areas.

Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt;
lowland meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule
patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime
seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depression
concealed in vegetation.

Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

Branta hutchinsii leucopareia
cackling (=Aleutian Canada)
goose
FD/None
G5T3/S3
WL
Winters on lakes and inland prairies. Forages on
natural pasture or that cultivated to grain; loafs
on lakes, reservoirs, ponds.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G4/S3S4
WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub,
low foothills and fringes of pinyon and juniper
habitats. Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground
squirrels, and mice. Population trends may
follow lagomorph population cycles.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/ST
G5/S3
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees,
juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and
agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of
trees. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas
such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields
supporting rodent populations.

Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and
forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert
sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on ground in
shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge; nest
built of a large mound of sticks in wet areas.

Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G4/S1S2
SSC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in
Mono County. Freshwater marshlands.

Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
None/None
G5T4Q/S4
WL
Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to
San Diego County. Also, main part of San Joaquin
Valley and east to foothills. Short-grass prairie,
"bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal
plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.

Falco mexicanus
prairie falcon
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly.

Breeding sites located on cliffs. Forages far afield,
even to marshlands and ocean shores.

Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on
cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made
structures. Nest consists of a scrape or a
depression or ledge in an open site.

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh
and saltwater marshes. Requires thick,
continuous cover down to water surface for
foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for
nesting.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
FD/SE
G5/S3
FP
Ocean shore, lake margins, and rivers for both
nesting and wintering. Most nests within 1 mile
of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant
live tree with open branches, especially
ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter.

Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
None/ST
G3G4T1/S1
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering
larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch
that do not fluctuate during the year and dense
vegetation for nesting habitat.

Melospiza melodia maxillaris
Suisun song sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of brackish-water marshes surrounding
Suisun Bay. Inhabits cattails, tules and other
sedges, and Salicornia; also known to frequent
tangles bordering sloughs.

Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
None/None
G5T2?/S2S3
SSC
Resident of salt marshes bordering south arm of
San Francisco Bay. Inhabits Salicornia marshes;
nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to
escape high tides) and in Salicornia.

Melospiza melodia samuelis
San Pablo song sparrow
None/None
G5T2/S2
SSC
Resident of salt marshes along the north side of
San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Inhabits tidal
sloughs in the Salicornia marshes; nests in
Grindelia bordering slough channels.

Pandion haliaetus
osprey
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger
streams. Large nests built in tree-tops within 15
miles of a good fish-producing body of water.

Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G3T1/S1
FP
Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by
tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay.

Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed
but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from
mud-bottomed sloughs.

Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
FE/SE
G4T2T3Q/S2
FP
Nests along the coast from San Francisco Bay
south to northern Baja California. Colonial
breeder on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat
substrates: sand beaches, alkali flats, landfills, or
paved areas.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats including deserts,
grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests.

Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock
outcrops, caves, mine tunnels, buildings, bridges,
and hollows of live and dead trees which must
protect bats from high temperatures. Very
sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in a wide variety of
habitats. Most common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests. Roosts in the
open, hanging from walls, ceilings in caves, lava
tubes, bridges, and buildings. This species is
extremely sensitive to human disturbance.

Neotoma fuscipes annectens
San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
None/None
G5T2T3/S2S3
SSC
Typically found in forest habitats with moderate
to dense understory. Can occur in chaparral,
riparian woodlands, and coniferous forests,
particularly redwood. Builds middens out of
grasses, leaves, and woody debris. This
subspecies is found only in the San Francisco Bay
region.

Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Low-lying arid areas in Southern California. Need
high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites.

Feeds principally on large moths.

Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt-marsh harvest mouse
FE/SE
G1G2/S1S2
FP
Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San
Francisco Bay and its tributaries. Pickleweed is
primary habitat but may occur in other marsh
vegetation types and in adjacent upland areas.

Does not burrow; builds loosely organized nests.

Requires higher areas for flood escape.

Scapanus latimanus parvus
Alameda Island mole
None/None
G5T1Q/SH
SSC
Only known from Alameda Island. Found in a
variety of habitats, especially annual and
perennial grasslands. Prefers moist, friable soils.

Avoids flooded soils.

Sorex ornatus sinuosus
Suisun shrew
None/None
G5T1T2Q/S1S2
SSC
Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San
Pablo and Suisun bays. Require dense low-lying
cover and driftweed and other litter above the
mean hightide line for nesting and foraging.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils
and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
FE/ST
G4T2/S2
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with
scattered shrubby vegetation. Need loosetextured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base.

FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered
FC = Federal Candidate Species ST = State Threatened
FE = Federally Endangered SR = State Rare
FS = Federally Sensitive SS = State Sensitive
DL = Delisted SC = State Candidate
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern FP = Fully Protected G-Rank/S-Rank = Global Rank and State Rank as per NatureServe and CDFW’s CNDDB RareFind5 CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):
1A=Presumed Extinct in California
1B=Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2=Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3=Need more information (a Review List)
4=Plants of Limited Distribution (a Watch List)
CRPR Threat Code Extension:
.1=Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2=Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3=Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened) Sources: CNDDB (CDFW, 2022a); USFWS (2022a), CDFW Special Animals List (2021). CDFW Special Plants List (2021) and CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (2022)
Appendix C
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling and Energy Calculations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline
Contra Costa County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Civic center used as proxy for semi public & institutional; elementary school used as proxy for school; strip mall used as proxy for commercial. Lot acreage reduced to reflect total acreage of Pleasant Hill.

Construction Phase - No construction; operational only run Off-road Equipment -
Water Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 1,421.15 1000sqft 818.00 1,421,150.00 0 Government (Civic Center) 396.14 1000sqft 9.09 396,140.00 0 Elementary School 1,084.83 1000sqft 24.90 1,084,830.00 0 General Heavy Industry 1,647.37 1000sqft 37.82 1,647,370.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 4,573.00 Dwelling Unit 120.34 4,573,000.00 13079 Single Family Housing 9,763.00 Dwelling Unit 3,169.81 17,573,400.00 27922 Strip Mall 3,454.83 1000sqft 318.00 3,454,830.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2022
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10,000.00 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 32.63 818.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 79.31 318.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 208.8368 2.7336 204.8377 0.2070 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 1,449.466 2 564.3565 2,013.822
8 2.8479 0.0846 2,110.234
9 Energy 2.8261 24.4700 12.6220 0.1542 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 0.0000 43,537.03 01 43,537.03
01 3.0547 0.8181 43,857.17
79 Mobile 131.6928 148.4513 1,131.114
1 2.1464 214.1922 1.8872 216.0794 57.2071 1.7642 58.9713 0.0000 198,909.3 093
198,909.3
093

14.7587 10.3223 202,354.3
350
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4,971.467
9 0.0000 4,971.467
9 293.8053 0.0000 12,316.60
13 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 613.4581 1,301.505 1 1,914.963
2 63.2186 1.5133 3,946.384
8 Total 343.3557 175.6549 1,348.573
7 2.5075 214.1922 18.5724 232.7645 57.2071 18.4494 75.6564 7,034.392 2 244,312.2
010
251,346.5
932
377.6853 12.7383 264,584.7
339
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

14.7587 10.3223 202,354.3
350
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4,971.467
9 0.0000 4,971.467
9 293.8053 0.0000 12,316.60
13 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 490.7665 1,107.890 2 1,598.656
7 50.5857 1.2119 3,224.453
4 Total 343.3557 175.6549 1,348.573
7 2.5075 214.1922 18.5724 232.7645 57.2071 18.4494 75.6564 6,911.700 6 244,118.5
861
251,030.2
867
365.0524 12.4369 263,862.8
024
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 10/25/2022 10/11/2022 5 0
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.08 0.13 3.34 2.37 0.27 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 131.6928 148.4513 1,131.114
1 2.1464 214.1922 1.8872 216.0794 57.2071 1.7642 58.9713 0.0000 198,909.3 093
198,909.3
093

14.7587 10.3223 202,354.3
350
Unmitigated 131.6928 148.4513 1,131.114
1 2.1464 214.1922 1.8872 216.0794 57.2071 1.7642 58.9713 0.0000 198,909.3 093
198,909.3
093

14.7587 10.3223 202,354.3
350

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 24,877.12 22,453.43 18703.57 54,619,771 54,619,771 Elementary School 21,175.88 0.00 0.00 33,351,092 33,351,092 General Heavy Industry 6,474.16 10,576.12 8385.11 21,409,213 21,409,213 General Office Building 13,842.00 3,140.74 994.81 25,039,677 25,039,677 Government (Civic Center) 13,460.84 0.00 0.00 18,380,167 18,380,167 Single Family Housing 92,162.72 93,139.02 83473.65 210,314,909 210,314,909 Strip Mall 153,118.07 145,241.05 70582.18 215,915,615 215,915,615 Total 325,110.79 274,550.36 182,139.32 579,030,445 579,030,445 Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Elementary School 9.50 7.30 7.30 65.00 30.00 5.00 63 25 12 General Heavy Industry 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Government (Civic Center) 9.50 7.30 7.30 75.00 20.00 5.00 50 34 16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 Elementary School 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 General Heavy Industry 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 General Office Building 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 Government (Civic Center) 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 Single Family Housing 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595 Strip Mall 0.553951 0.056244 0.181537 0.131938 0.024760 0.005449 0.007285 0.007018 0.000560 0.000348 0.026165 0.001150 0.003595

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15,568.49
15 15,568.49
15 2.5187 0.3053 15,722.43
62 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15,568.49
15 15,568.49
15 2.5187 0.3053 15,722.43
62 NaturalGas
Mitigated

2.8261 24.4700 12.6220 0.1542 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 0.0000 27,968.53 86 27,968.53
86 0.5361 0.5128 28,134.74
16 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

2.8261 24.4700 12.6220 0.1542 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 0.0000 27,968.53 86 27,968.53
86 0.5361 0.5128 28,134.74
16 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.86099e
+007

0.2082 1.7791 0.7571 0.0114 0.1438 0.1438 0.1438 0.1438 0.0000 2,060.370 5 2,060.370
5 0.0395 0.0378 2,072.614
2 Elementary
School

1.77044e
+007

0.0955 0.8679 0.7290 5.2100e0030.0660 0.0660 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 944.7756 944.7756 0.0181 0.0173 950.3899 General Heavy
Industry

4.04759e
+007

0.2183 1.9841 1.6667 0.0119 0.1508 0.1508 0.1508 0.1508 0.0000 2,159.947 2 2,159.947
2 0.0414 0.0396 2,172.782
6 General Office
Building

2.7215e
+007

0.1468 1.3341 1.1206 8.0000e0030.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0000 1,452.297 2 1,452.297
2 0.0278 0.0266 1,460.927
5 Government
(Civic Center)

7.58608e
+006

0.0409 0.3719 0.3124 2.2300e0030.0283 0.0283 0.0283 0.0283 0.0000 404.8222 404.8222 7.7600e0037.4200e003407.2278 Single Family
Housing

3.76765e
+008

2.0316 17.3608 7.3876 0.1108 1.4036 1.4036 1.4036 1.4036 0.0000 20,105.63 12 20,105.63
12 0.3854 0.3686 20,225.10
89 Strip Mall 1.5754e
+007

0.0850 0.7723 0.6487 4.6300e0030.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.0000 840.6948 840.6948 0.0161 0.0154 845.6906 Total 2.8261 24.4700 12.6220 0.1541 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 0.0000 27,968.53 86 27,968.53
86 0.5361 0.5128 28,134.74
16 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.86099e
+007

0.2082 1.7791 0.7571 0.0114 0.1438 0.1438 0.1438 0.1438 0.0000 2,060.370 5 2,060.370
5 0.0395 0.0378 2,072.614
2 Elementary
School

1.77044e
+007

0.0955 0.8679 0.7290 5.2100e0030.0660 0.0660 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 944.7756 944.7756 0.0181 0.0173 950.3899 General Heavy
Industry

4.04759e
+007

0.2183 1.9841 1.6667 0.0119 0.1508 0.1508 0.1508 0.1508 0.0000 2,159.947 2 2,159.947
2 0.0414 0.0396 2,172.782
6 General Office
Building

2.7215e
+007

0.1468 1.3341 1.1206 8.0000e0030.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.1014 0.0000 1,452.297 2 1,452.297
2 0.0278 0.0266 1,460.927
5 Government
(Civic Center)

7.58608e
+006

0.0409 0.3719 0.3124 2.2300e0030.0283 0.0283 0.0283 0.0283 0.0000 404.8222 404.8222 7.7600e0037.4200e003407.2278 Single Family
Housing

3.76765e
+008

2.0316 17.3608 7.3876 0.1108 1.4036 1.4036 1.4036 1.4036 0.0000 20,105.63 12 20,105.63
12 0.3854 0.3686 20,225.10
89 Strip Mall 1.5754e
+007

0.0850 0.7723 0.6487 4.6300e0030.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.0587 0.0000 840.6948 840.6948 0.0161 0.0154 845.6906 Total 2.8261 24.4700 12.6220 0.1541 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 1.9526 0.0000 27,968.53 86 27,968.53
86 0.5361 0.5128 28,134.74
16 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.77724e
+007
1,644.366
7 0.2660 0.0323 1,660.626
6 Elementary
School

4.74071e
+006
438.6281 0.0710 8.6000e003442.9654
General Heavy
Industry

1.224e
+007
1,132.487
2 0.1832 0.0222 1,143.685
5 General Office
Building

1.71106e
+007
1,583.141
5 0.2561 0.0311 1,598.796
0 Government
(Civic Center)

4.76953e
+006
441.2945 0.0714 8.6500e003445.6581
Single Family
Housing

7.62541e
+007
7,055.317
6 1.1414 0.1384 7,125.082
1 Strip Mall 3.53775e
+007
3,273.256
0 0.5296 0.0642 3,305.622
7 Total 15,568.49
15 2.5187 0.3053 15,722.43
62 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.77724e
+007
1,644.366
7 0.2660 0.0323 1,660.626
6 Elementary
School

4.74071e
+006
438.6281 0.0710 8.6000e003442.9654
General Heavy
Industry

1.224e
+007
1,132.487
2 0.1832 0.0222 1,143.685
5 General Office
Building

1.71106e
+007
1,583.141
5 0.2561 0.0311 1,598.796
0 Government
(Civic Center)

4.76953e
+006
441.2945 0.0714 8.6500e003445.6581
Single Family
Housing

7.62541e
+007
7,055.317
6 1.1414 0.1384 7,125.082
1 Strip Mall 3.53775e
+007
3,273.256
0 0.5296 0.0642 3,305.622
7 Total 15,568.49
15 2.5187 0.3053 15,722.43
62 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 208.8368 2.7336 204.8377 0.2070 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 1,449.466 2 564.3565 2,013.822
8 2.8479 0.0846 2,110.234
9 Unmitigated 208.8368 2.7336 204.8377 0.2070 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 1,449.466 2 564.3565 2,013.822
8 2.8479 0.0846 2,110.234
9 6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

19.7635 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
117.7536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 68.0942 1.5039 98.2030 0.2014 14.1435 14.1435 14.1435 14.1435 1,449.466 2 390.3350 1,839.801
3 2.6798 0.0846 1,932.010
2 Landscaping 3.2254 1.2296 106.6347 5.6300e0030.5890 0.5890 0.5890 0.5890 0.0000 174.0215 174.0215 0.1681 0.0000 178.2247 Total 208.8368 2.7336 204.8377 0.2070 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 1,449.466 2 564.3565 2,013.822
8 2.8479 0.0846 2,110.234
9 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

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

19.7635 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
117.7536 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 68.0942 1.5039 98.2030 0.2014 14.1435 14.1435 14.1435 14.1435 1,449.466 2 390.3350 1,839.801
3 2.6798 0.0846 1,932.010
2 Landscaping 3.2254 1.2296 106.6347 5.6300e0030.5890 0.5890 0.5890 0.5890 0.0000 174.0215 174.0215 0.1681 0.0000 178.2247 Total 208.8368 2.7336 204.8377 0.2070 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 14.7326 1,449.466 2 564.3565 2,013.822
8 2.8479 0.0846 2,110.234
9 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1,598.656
7 50.5857 1.2119 3,224.453
4 Unmitigated 1,914.963
2 63.2186 1.5133 3,946.384
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
297.949 /
187.838
304.5208 9.7427 0.2334 617.6289
Elementary
School

31.4567 /

80.8887

51.9229 1.0318 0.0250 85.1756
General Heavy
Industry
380.954 /
0 311.5825 12.4443 0.2969 711.1495
General Office
Building
252.586 /
154.811
256.7233 8.2591 0.1978 522.1462
Government
(Civic Center)

78.697 /

48.2337

79.9860 2.5733 0.0616 162.6825
Single Family
Housing
636.099 /
401.019
650.1284 20.7998 0.4982 1,318.589
7 Strip Mall 255.908 /
156.847
260.0993 8.3677 0.2004 529.0127
Total 1,914.963
2 63.2186 1.5133 3,946.384
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
238.359 /
187.838
255.7823 7.7961 0.1869 506.3890
Elementary
School

25.1654 /

80.8887

46.7772 0.8263 0.0201 73.4311
General Heavy
Industry
304.763 /
0 249.2660 9.9554 0.2375 568.9196
General Office
Building
202.069 /
154.811
215.4052 6.6089 0.1584 427.8427
Government
(Civic Center)

62.9576 /

48.2337

67.1127 2.0591 0.0494 133.3008
Single Family
Housing
508.879 /
401.019
546.0753 16.6441 0.3991 1,081.101
2 Strip Mall 204.726 /
156.847
218.2379 6.6958 0.1605 433.4690
Total 1,598.656
7 50.5857 1.2119 3,224.453
4 Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 4,971.467
9 293.8053 0.0000 12,316.60
13 Unmitigated 4,971.467
9 293.8053 0.0000 12,316.60
13 Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
2103.58 427.0077 25.2354 0.0000 1,057.893
6 Elementary
School
1410.28 286.2741 16.9183 0.0000 709.2320
General Heavy
Industry
2042.74 414.6578 24.5056 0.0000 1,027.297
1 General Office
Building
1321.67 268.2871 15.8553 0.0000 664.6699
Government
(Civic Center)
2258 458.3536 27.0879 0.0000 1,135.551
6 Single Family
Housing
11727.2 2,380.523
7 140.6849 0.0000 5,897.646
8 Strip Mall 3627.57 736.3639 43.5179 0.0000 1,824.310
5 Total 4,971.467
9 293.8053 0.0000 12,316.60
13 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 23 Date: 12/2/2022 5:01 PM Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan Baseline - Contra Costa County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Calendar
Year
Season Sub Area Vehicle Class Fuel Process Pollutant Emission 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.35E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.005266 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.62E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.499235 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses NG IDLEX CH4 6.08E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses NG IDLEX CO2 0.000153 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses NG RUNEX CH4 4.97E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) All Other Buses NG RUNEX CO2 0.006783 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Dsl RUNEX CH4 4.70E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.847596 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Gas RUNEX CH4 0.003403 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Gas RUNEX CO2 274.9945 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Gas STREX CH4 0.008108 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Gas STREX CO2 7.94609 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Phe RUNEX CH4 1.55E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Phe RUNEX CO2 3.557321 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Phe STREX CH4 7.62E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDA Phe STREX CO2 0.144918 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.88E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.00841 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Gas RUNEX CH4 0.000808 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Gas RUNEX CO2 30.74305 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Gas STREX CH4 0.001236 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Gas STREX CO2 0.918329 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Phe RUNEX CH4 2.83E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Phe RUNEX CO2 0.006496 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Phe STREX CH4 1.31E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT1 Phe STREX CO2 0.000274 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.28E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.643926 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Gas RUNEX CH4 0.001857 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Gas RUNEX CO2 164.5389 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Gas STREX CH4 0.004058 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Gas STREX CO2 4.53831 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Phe RUNEX CH4 1.47E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Phe RUNEX CO2 0.337842 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Phe STREX CH4 6.81E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LDT2 Phe STREX CO2 0.015493 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.31E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.087764 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Dsl RUNEX CH4 0.00025 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Dsl RUNEX CO2 15.59969 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas IDLEX CH4 5.68E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas IDLEX CO2 0.109614 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas RUNEX CH4 0.000391 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas RUNEX CO2 32.42547 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas STREX CH4 0.000504 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD1 Gas STREX CO2 0.29435 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.24E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.052151 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Dsl RUNEX CH4 8.43E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Dsl RUNEX CO2 7.400849 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas IDLEX CH4 6.49E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas IDLEX CO2 0.014703 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas RUNEX CH4 3.80E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas RUNEX CO2 4.125914 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas STREX CH4 5.69E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) LHD2 Gas STREX CO2 0.033932 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MCY Gas RUNEX CH4 0.001562 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MCY Gas RUNEX CO2 1.269711 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MCY Gas STREX CH4 0.000621 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MCY Gas STREX CO2 0.09809 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.97E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.126978 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Gas RUNEX CH4 0.001816 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Gas RUNEX CO2 124.5451 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Gas STREX CH4 0.003605 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Gas STREX CO2 3.662246 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Phe RUNEX CH4 1.03E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Phe RUNEX CO2 0.236389 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Phe STREX CH4 4.95E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MDV Phe STREX CO2 0.014224 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.42E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.609759 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Gas RUNEX CH4 2.19E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Gas RUNEX CO2 2.564304 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Gas STREX CH4 4.64E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) MH Gas STREX CO2 0.000375 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) Motor Coach Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.51E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) Motor Coach Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.020201 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) Motor Coach Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.03E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) Motor Coach Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.476301 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas IDLEX CH4 1.99E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas IDLEX CO2 0.00761 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas RUNEX CH4 2.10E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas RUNEX CO2 1.725941 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas STREX CH4 1.61E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) OBUS Gas STREX CO2 0.010215 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) PTO Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.93E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) PTO Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.234608 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Dsl IDLEX CH4 2.55E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.071921 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.79E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.866762 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas IDLEX CH4 7.28E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas IDLEX CO2 0.012453 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas RUNEX CH4 2.02E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas RUNEX CO2 0.22358 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas STREX CH4 1.25E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS Gas STREX CO2 0.000831 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS NG IDLEX CH4 2.25E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS NG IDLEX CO2 0.005454 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS NG RUNEX CH4 0.000131 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) SBUS NG RUNEX CO2 0.044179 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.30E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CO2 7.37E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CH4 5.64E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.009083 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.90E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 9.96E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 5.02E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.012427 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.26E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.000292 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.64E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.032129 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 2.04E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.000527 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 7.47E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.189791 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 0 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 0 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 0 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 CAIRP Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.01E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.043541 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.80E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.815366 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 NG IDLEX CH4 1.34E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000368 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 NG RUNEX CH4 2.47E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 4 NG RUNEX CO2 0.003235 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.59E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.034519 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.29E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.665092 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 NG IDLEX CH4 1.16E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000306 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 NG RUNEX CH4 1.99E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 5 NG RUNEX CO2 0.002644 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 4.34E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.075314 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 4.08E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 1.442 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 NG IDLEX CH4 2.62E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000693 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 NG RUNEX CH4 4.55E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 6 NG RUNEX CO2 0.006059 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.96E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.0082 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 5.24E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.230412 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 6.99E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000165 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 1.83E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Delivery Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0.002487 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.22E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.116793 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.15E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.213127 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 NG IDLEX CH4 2.44E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000717 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 NG RUNEX CH4 4.47E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 4 NG RUNEX CO2 0.00643 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.06E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.235492 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 5.41E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 5.205814 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 NG IDLEX CH4 6.71E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 NG IDLEX CO2 0.001684 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 NG RUNEX CH4 9.42E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 5 NG RUNEX CO2 0.014714 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.34E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.187913 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.92E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 3.911911 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 NG IDLEX CH4 5.76E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 NG IDLEX CO2 0.001437 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 NG RUNEX CH4 7.86E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 6 NG RUNEX CO2 0.012373 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 5.53E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.104447 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.28E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.383374 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 1.40E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 0.003464 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 2.80E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Other Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0.040741 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 4.10E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.001722 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.18E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.044007 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 NG IDLEX CH4 2.19E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 NG IDLEX CO2 7.43E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 NG RUNEX CH4 6.25E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 6 NG RUNEX CO2 8.39E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 5.39E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.012631 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 6.23E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.342525 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 8.41E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000213 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 2.15E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Instate Tractor Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0.003138 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.98E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CO2 4.19E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.76E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.005104 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 2.22E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 5.63E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.01E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.006986 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 7.40E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.000166 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.09E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.018062 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.10E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.000285 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 5.01E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 OOS Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.123553 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CH4 8.21E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.022523 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.13E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.260932 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 NG IDLEX CH4 1.49E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000535 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 NG RUNEX CH4 3.16E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 4 NG RUNEX CO2 0.00341 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.32E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.03448 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.62E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.455484 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 NG IDLEX CH4 1.16E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 NG IDLEX CO2 0.00353 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 NG RUNEX CH4 2.03E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 5 NG RUNEX CO2 0.023452 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.78E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.033388 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.39E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.428658 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 NG IDLEX CH4 5.20E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 NG IDLEX CO2 0.001548 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 NG RUNEX CH4 9.10E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 6 NG RUNEX CO2 0.010268 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.14E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.050026 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.85E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.806052 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 8.38E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 0.00249 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 2.01E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Public Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0.022505 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.05E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.007864 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.39E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.211746 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 NG IDLEX CH4 7.33E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000188 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 NG RUNEX CH4 1.61E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 5 NG RUNEX CO2 0.002224 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CH4 5.92E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.001516 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.15E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.040152 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 NG IDLEX CH4 1.30E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 NG IDLEX CO2 3.35E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 NG RUNEX CH4 2.93E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 6 NG RUNEX CO2 0.000397 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CH4 6.53E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.001696 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.78E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.055254 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 NG IDLEX CH4 2.69E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 NG IDLEX CO2 6.64E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 NG RUNEX CH4 6.42E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6 Utility Class 7 NG RUNEX CO2 0.000888 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas IDLEX CH4 7.21E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas IDLEX CO2 0.029709 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas RUNEX CH4 7.95E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas RUNEX CO2 5.081874 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas STREX CH4 6.49E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T6TS Gas STREX CO2 0.042644 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 2.19E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 1.14428 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.36E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 14.50568 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 1.44E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.00426 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 1.74E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 CAIRP Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.020456 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 2.46E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 1.253622 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 8.68E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NNOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 17.36822 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.02E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.533438 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 4.25E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 NOOS Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 6.274857 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 7.70E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.044674 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.50E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Other Port Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 1.395064 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 4.84E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.27578 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.06E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 4.962207 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 3.70E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000923 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 6.64E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POAK Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.007659 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.12E-14 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 6.61E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 4.53E-14 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 1.54E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 4.10E-13 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 9.93E-11 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 9.47E-13 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 POLA Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 1.11E-09 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.86E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.11458 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.00E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.825499 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 2.75E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.000737 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 1.20E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Public Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.010259 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 5.13E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.026586 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.75E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.692172 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 1.03E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.002768 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 2.49E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF)T7 Single Concrete/Transit Mix Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.027925 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.40E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.184013 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 3.00E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 3.855228 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 7.30E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.018875 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 0.000149 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Dump Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.175076 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 3.69E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.191049 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.30E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 3.818159 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 7.13E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.019411 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 0.000139 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Single Other Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.15756 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 7.47E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.057105 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.41E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 3.809861 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 0.000244 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.093094 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 0.004394 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 SWCV Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 1.466704 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 1.52E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.840992 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 1.30E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 12.10711 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 NG IDLEX CH4 0.000639 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 NG IDLEX CO2 0.144319 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 NG RUNEX CH4 0.000843 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Tractor Class 8 NG RUNEX CO2 0.957735 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CH4 9.48E-08 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl IDLEX CO2 0.005261 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CH4 2.24E-07 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7 Utility Class 8 Dsl RUNEX CO2 0.26245 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7IS Gas RUNEX CH4 1.03E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7IS Gas RUNEX CO2 0.006981 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7IS Gas STREX CH4 6.09E-10 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) T7IS Gas STREX CO2 6.87E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Dsl RUNEX CH4 9.08E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Dsl RUNEX CO2 2.45697 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Gas RUNEX CH4 1.47E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Gas RUNEX CO2 0.582278 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Gas STREX CH4 1.87E-06 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS Gas STREX CO2 0.00179 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS NG RUNEX CH4 9.31E-05 2022 Annual Contra Costa (SF) UBUS NG RUNEX CO2 0.027452 TOTAL 799.7013 tons/day
291891 tons/year
264,799 MT/year
Energy Calculations
OR
Annual VMT: 1,886,700
Daily Vehicle
Trips:

Average Trip
Distance:

Passenger Vehicles 25.3
Light-Med Duty Trucks 18.6
Heavy Trucks/Other 7.6
Motorcycles 44
Vehicle Type Percent Fuel Type
Annual VMT:

VMT Vehicle Trips: VMT
Fuel
Consumption
(Gallons)
Passenger Vehicles 55.40% Gasoline 1,045,139 0.00 41,310 Light-Medium Duty Trucks 36.97% Gasoline 697,549 0.00 37,503 Heavy Trucks/Other 5.02% Diesel 94,646 0.00 12,453
Motorcycle 2.62% Gasoline 49,366 1,122 0.00
79,934
12,453
Sources:
[1] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. National Transportation Statistics. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics.

0.000348

0.001150
Fleet Mix
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan - Existing (2022)
Last Updated: December 2, 2022

0.003595

0.026165
Light Duty Auto (LDA)
Light Duty Truck 1 (LDT1)
Light Duty Truck 2 (LDT2)
Medium Duty Vehicle (MDV)
Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD1)
Light Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2)
Medium Heavy Duty (MHD)
Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD)
Other Bus (OBUS)
Urban Bus (UBUS)
School Bus (SBUS)
Motorhome (MH)
Fleet Class
Populate one of the following tables (Leave the other blank):

Fuel Economy (MPG) [1]
Motorcycle (MCY)
Annual VMT Daily Vehicle Trips
Fleet Mix

0.553951

0.056244

0.181537

0.131938

0.024760

0.005449

0.007285

0.007018

0.000560
OR
Annual VMT: 3,018,600
Daily Vehicle
Trips:

Average Trip
Distance:

Passenger Vehicles 25.3
Light-Med Duty Trucks 18.6
Heavy Trucks/Other 7.6
Motorcycles 44
Vehicle Type Percent Fuel Type
Annual VMT:

VMT Vehicle Trips: VMT
Fuel
Consumption
(Gallons)
Passenger Vehicles 58.68% Gasoline 1,771,453 0.00 70,018 Light-Medium Duty Trucks 34.28% Gasoline 1,034,861 0.00 55,638 Heavy Trucks/Other 4.57% Diesel 138,098 0.00 18,171
Motorcycle 2.46% Gasoline 74,185 1,686 0.00
127,342
18,171
Sources:
[1] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. National Transportation Statistics. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics.

Urban Bus (UBUS) 0.000264
Motorcycle (MCY) 0.024576
School Bus (SBUS) 0.002469
Motorhome (MH) 0.002558
Fleet Mix
Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons)
Total Diesel Consumption (gallons)
Medium Heavy Duty (MHD) 0.006953
Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD) 0.006514
Other Bus (OBUS) 0.000528
Medium Duty Vehicle (MDV) 0.114924
Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD1) 0.020756
Light Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2) 0.005707
Light Duty Auto (LDA) 0.586846
Light Duty Truck 1 (LDT1) 0.055769
Light Duty Truck 2 (LDT2) 0.172135
Fleet Class Fleet Mix Fuel Economy (MPG) [1]
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan - Buildout (2040)
Last Updated: December 2, 2022
Populate one of the following tables (Leave the other blank):

Annual VMT Daily Vehicle Trips
Appendix D
Noise Calculations
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted
Speed
Limit
Grade % Autos % Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime
% Evening % Night
Number
of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance
to
Reciever
Ground
Absorptio
n
Lane
Distance
Daytime
Autos
Daytime
Med
Truck
Daytime
Heavy
Evening
Autos
Evening
Med
Truck
Evening
Heavy
Night
Autos
Night
Med
Truck
Night
Heavy
Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Equivalen
t Lane
Distance
Distance
Ref
Distance
Propag
Heavy
Truck
Grade
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos
Med
Truck
Heavy
Truck
Day Leq
Evening
Leq
Night Leq
1 64.1 66.2 66.8 31 66 142 Pacheco Blvd North of 1st Ave 17,000 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1152.3 15.3 8.2 555.3 7.4 4.0 129.6 1.7 0.9 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.1 -18.9 -21.6 -3.3 -22.1 -24.8 -9.6 -28.4 -31.1 65.0 56.0 58.5 61.9 52.8 55.3 55.5 46.5 49.0 66.3 63.2 56.8 2 60.7 62.8 63.4 18 39 84 Center Ave West of Pacheco Blvd 8,000 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 542.3 7.2 3.9 261.3 3.5 1.9 61.0 0.8 0.4 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.4 -22.2 -24.9 -6.6 -25.3 -28.0 -12.9 -31.7 -34.4 61.6 52.6 55.1 58.5 49.4 51.9 52.1 43.1 45.6 62.9 59.8 53.4 3 63.3 65.4 65.9 27 58 124 Chilpaningo Prkwy West of Pacheco Blvd 17,800 30 0.0% 98.3% 0.3% 1.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1210.2 3.7 17.2 583.2 1.8 8.3 136.1 0.4 1.9 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.8 -24.4 -17.7 -2.4 -27.6 -20.9 -8.7 -33.9 -27.2 63.3 48.8 61.1 60.2 45.6 57.9 53.8 39.3 51.6 65.5 62.3 56.0 4 65.2 67.3 67.8 36 77 166 Contra Costa Blvd South of Concord Ave 30,000 30 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2021.1 37.4 14.5 974.0 18.0 7.0 227.3 4.2 1.6 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 3.0 -14.4 -18.5 -0.2 -17.5 -21.6 -6.5 -23.8 -27.9 65.5 58.8 60.4 62.4 55.6 57.2 56.1 49.3 50.9 67.4 64.2 57.9 5 61.6 63.7 64.2 21 44 96 Golf Club Road West of Pacheco Blvd 13,100 30 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 882.5 16.3 6.3 425.3 7.9 3.1 99.2 1.8 0.7 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.6 -18.0 -22.1 -3.8 -21.1 -25.2 -10.1 -27.4 -31.5 61.9 55.2 56.8 58.8 52.0 53.6 52.5 45.7 47.3 63.8 60.6 54.3 6 61.1 63.2 63.8 19 42 89 Morello Ave North of Paso Nogal Rd 8,600 35 0.0% 98.2% 0.9% 0.9% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 584.1 5.4 5.4 281.5 2.6 2.6 65.7 0.6 0.6 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.1 -23.5 -23.5 -6.3 -26.6 -26.6 -12.6 -33.0 -33.0 62.0 51.3 56.5 58.8 48.1 53.3 52.5 41.8 47.0 63.3 60.2 53.8 7 54.2 56.3 56.9 7 14 31 Paso Nogal Rd East of Morello Ave 3,900 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 264.4 3.5 1.9 127.4 1.7 0.9 29.7 0.4 0.2 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -5.1 -23.8 -26.5 -8.2 -27.0 -29.7 -14.6 -33.3 -36.0 54.3 47.2 50.6 51.1 44.0 47.5 44.8 37.7 41.2 56.4 53.2 46.9 8 53.6 55.8 56.3 6 13 28 Paso Nogal Rd East of Alhambra Ave 5,000 25 0.0% 99.7% 0.2% 0.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 344.8 0.7 0.3 166.2 0.3 0.2 38.8 0.1 0.0 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.9 -30.9 -33.9 -7.1 -34.1 -37.1 -13.4 -40.4 -43.4 55.5 40.1 43.3 52.3 37.0 40.1 46.0 30.6 33.8 55.8 52.7 46.3 9 55.8 57.9 58.4 8 18 39 Viking Dr West of Contra Costa Blvd 7,200 25 0.0% 99.3% 0.4% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 494.5 2.0 1.5 238.3 1.0 0.7 55.6 0.2 0.2 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.3 -26.3 -27.5 -5.5 -29.5 -30.7 -11.8 -35.8 -37.0 57.0 44.7 49.6 53.9 41.6 46.5 47.5 35.2 40.1 58.0 54.8 48.5 10 58.4 60.6 61.1 13 27 59 Morello Ave South of Viking Dr 8,800 30 0.0% 99.6% 0.2% 0.2% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 606.2 1.2 1.2 292.2 0.6 0.6 68.2 0.1 0.1 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.3 -29.2 -29.2 -5.4 -32.4 -32.4 -11.7 -38.7 -38.7 60.2 43.8 49.5 57.0 40.6 46.3 50.7 34.3 40.0 60.6 57.5 51.1 11 56.4 58.6 59.1 9 20 43 Norse Dr North of Taylor Blvd 6,500 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 440.6 5.8 3.1 212.3 2.8 1.5 49.5 0.7 0.4 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.8 -21.6 -24.3 -6.0 -24.8 -27.5 -12.3 -31.1 -33.8 56.5 49.4 52.9 53.4 46.2 49.7 47.0 39.9 43.4 58.6 55.5 49.1 12 67.7 69.9 70.4 53 114 247 Taylor Blvd West of Contra Costa Blvd 23,200 40 0.0% 97.5% 0.4% 2.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1564.6 6.4 33.7 754.0 3.1 16.2 175.9 0.7 3.8 67.4 76.3 81.2 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.6 -23.3 -16.1 -2.6 -26.4 -19.2 -8.9 -32.7 -25.5 68.0 53.1 65.2 64.9 49.9 62.0 58.5 43.6 55.7 69.9 66.8 60.4 13 65.5 67.6 68.1 38 81 174 Contra Costa Blvd North of Beth Dr 21,600 35 0.0% 98.4% 0.3% 1.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1470.1 4.5 19.4 708.5 2.2 9.4 165.3 0.5 2.2 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.9 -24.2 -17.9 -2.2 -27.4 -21.0 -8.6 -33.7 -27.4 66.1 50.7 62.2 62.9 47.5 59.1 56.6 41.2 52.7 67.7 64.5 58.2 14 57.4 59.6 60.1 11 24 51 Ellinwood Dr East of Cotra Costa Blvd 8,200 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 555.8 7.4 4.0 267.9 3.6 1.9 62.5 0.8 0.4 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.8 -20.6 -23.3 -5.0 -23.8 -26.5 -11.3 -30.1 -32.8 57.5 50.4 53.9 54.4 47.2 50.7 48.0 40.9 44.4 59.6 56.5 50.1 15 53.2 55.3 55.9 6 12 27 Lucille Lane North of Maureen Ln 3,100 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 210.1 2.8 1.5 101.3 1.3 0.7 23.6 0.3 0.2 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -6.1 -24.8 -27.5 -9.2 -28.0 -30.7 -15.6 -34.3 -37.0 53.3 46.2 49.6 50.1 43.0 46.5 43.8 36.7 40.2 55.4 52.2 45.9 16 66.7 68.8 69.4 45 98 210 Taylor Blvd East of Alhambra Ave 19,800 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.4% 1.6% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1342.1 5.5 21.9 646.8 2.6 10.6 150.9 0.6 2.5 67.4 76.3 81.2 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.0 -23.9 -17.9 -3.2 -27.1 -21.1 -9.5 -33.4 -27.4 67.4 52.4 63.3 64.2 49.3 60.1 57.9 42.9 53.8 68.9 65.7 59.4 17 67.2 69.3 69.8 49 105 227 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Taylor Blvd 27,200 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.4% 2.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1834.3 7.5 39.5 884.0 3.6 19.0 206.3 0.8 4.4 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 1.9 -22.0 -14.8 -1.3 -25.2 -17.9 -7.6 -31.5 -24.3 67.1 52.9 65.3 63.9 49.7 62.2 57.6 43.4 55.8 69.4 66.2 59.9 18 69.6 71.7 72.3 71 153 329 Taylor Blvd West of Alhambra Ave 19,000 50 0.0% 96.3% 0.4% 3.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1265.5 5.3 43.4 609.9 2.5 20.9 142.3 0.6 4.9 71.1 78.8 83.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -1.3 -25.1 -15.9 -4.4 -28.3 -19.1 -10.8 -34.6 -25.4 69.9 53.8 67.2 66.7 50.6 64.0 60.4 44.3 57.7 71.8 68.7 62.3 19 64.0 66.1 66.7 30 65 139 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Grayson Rd 15,900 35 0.0% 98.4% 0.5% 1.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1082.2 5.5 12.1 521.5 2.7 5.8 121.7 0.6 1.4 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.4 -23.3 -19.9 -3.6 -26.5 -23.1 -9.9 -32.8 -29.4 64.8 51.5 60.2 61.6 48.4 57.0 55.3 42.1 50.7 66.2 63.0 56.7 20 67.2 69.3 69.9 49 106 228 Taylor Blvd South of Grayson Rd 21,600 40 0.0% 97.8% 0.4% 1.8% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1461.1 6.0 26.9 704.2 2.9 13.0 164.3 0.7 3.0 67.4 76.3 81.2 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.3 -23.6 -17.0 -2.8 -26.7 -20.2 -9.2 -33.1 -26.5 67.7 52.8 64.2 64.6 49.6 61.0 58.2 43.3 54.7 69.4 66.3 59.9 21 61.6 63.7 64.3 21 45 96 Gregory Ln East of Pleasant Hill Rd 13,300 30 0.0% 98.3% 0.6% 1.0% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 904.3 5.5 9.2 435.8 2.7 4.4 101.7 0.6 1.0 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.5 -22.7 -20.4 -3.7 -25.8 -23.6 -10.0 -32.1 -29.9 62.1 50.5 58.4 58.9 47.3 55.2 52.6 41.0 48.9 63.8 60.6 54.3 22 62.9 65.0 65.6 25 55 118 Gregory Ln West of Cleaveland Rd 16,700 30 0.0% 98.2% 0.5% 1.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1134.3 5.8 15.0 546.6 2.8 7.2 127.6 0.6 1.7 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.5 -22.5 -18.3 -2.7 -25.6 -21.5 -9.0 -32.0 -27.8 63.0 50.7 60.5 59.9 47.5 57.3 53.5 41.2 51.0 65.1 62.0 55.6 23 59.2 61.3 61.9 14 31 66 Cleaveland Rd South of Gregory Ln 9,300 30 0.0% 98.9% 0.8% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 636.2 5.1 1.9 306.6 2.5 0.9 71.5 0.6 0.2 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -2.0 -23.0 -27.2 -5.2 -26.1 -30.4 -11.5 -32.5 -36.7 60.5 50.2 51.6 57.4 47.0 48.4 51.0 40.7 42.1 61.4 58.2 51.9 24 67.8 69.9 70.5 54 116 250 Contra Costa Blvd North of Monument Blvd 30,600 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.6% 1.9% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 2063.6 12.7 40.2 994.5 6.1 19.4 232.1 1.4 4.5 65.1 74.8 80.0 94.0 -4.2 4.5 0 2.4 -19.7 -14.7 -0.8 -22.9 -17.9 -7.1 -29.2 -24.2 67.8 55.4 65.6 64.6 52.2 62.5 58.3 45.9 56.1 70.0 66.8 60.5 25 60.5 62.6 63.2 18 38 82 Boyd Rd West of Cleaveland Rd 16,700 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1132.0 15.0 8.1 545.5 7.2 3.9 127.3 1.7 0.9 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 1.3 -17.5 -20.2 -1.9 -20.7 -23.4 -8.2 -27.0 -29.7 60.6 53.5 57.0 57.5 50.3 53.8 51.1 44.0 47.5 62.7 59.6 53.2 26 68.4 70.5 71.0 59 127 273 Monument Blvd East of Buskirk Ave 45,300 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3070.6 40.7 21.9 1479.8 19.6 10.6 345.3 4.6 2.5 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 4.1 -14.6 -17.3 1.0 -17.8 -20.5 -5.4 -24.1 -26.8 69.3 60.2 62.8 66.1 57.1 59.6 59.8 50.7 53.3 70.6 67.4 61.1 27 63.7 65.8 66.4 29 62 133 Buskirk Ave South of Monument Blvd 25,800 30 0.0% 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1761.3 17.8 5.4 848.8 8.6 2.6 198.1 2.0 0.6 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 2.4 -17.6 -22.8 -0.8 -20.7 -26.0 -7.1 -27.1 -32.3 65.0 55.6 56.0 61.8 52.4 52.9 55.5 46.1 46.5 65.9 62.7 56.4 28 61.2 63.3 63.9 19 42 90 Hookston Rd East of Buskirk Ave 14,100 30 0.0% 98.9% 0.5% 0.6% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 964.5 4.9 5.9 464.8 2.4 2.8 108.5 0.5 0.7 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -0.2 -23.2 -22.4 -3.4 -26.4 -25.6 -9.7 -32.7 -31.9 62.2 49.8 56.3 59.0 46.7 53.1 52.7 40.4 46.8 63.4 60.2 53.9 29 58.9 61.1 61.6 14 30 64 Buskirk Ave South of Mayhew Way 8,900 30 0.0% 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 607.6 6.2 1.8 292.8 3.0 0.9 68.3 0.7 0.2 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.2 -22.2 -27.4 -5.4 -25.4 -30.6 -11.7 -31.7 -36.9 60.2 50.9 51.3 57.0 47.7 48.1 50.7 41.4 41.8 61.1 58.0 51.7 30 61.3 63.4 64.0 20 43 92 Oak Park Blvd West of Hook Ave 14,400 30 0.0% 99.1% 0.2% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 987.0 2.0 7.0 475.7 1.0 3.4 111.0 0.2 0.8 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -0.1 -27.1 -21.6 -3.3 -30.3 -24.8 -9.6 -36.6 -31.1 62.3 46.0 57.0 59.1 42.8 53.9 52.8 36.5 47.6 63.5 60.3 54.0 31 57.0 59.1 59.6 10 22 47 Patterson Blvd North of Oak Park Blvd 5,500 30 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 376.6 1.9 1.9 181.5 0.9 0.9 42.4 0.2 0.2 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -4.3 -27.3 -27.3 -7.5 -30.5 -30.5 -13.8 -36.8 -36.8 58.1 45.8 51.4 55.0 42.6 48.2 48.6 36.3 41.9 59.2 56.0 49.7 32 61.5 63.7 64.2 21 44 95 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Oak Park Blvd 8,200 40 0.0% 99.4% 0.5% 0.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 563.8 2.8 0.6 271.7 1.4 0.3 63.4 0.3 0.1 67.4 76.3 81.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.8 -26.8 -33.8 -7.0 -30.0 -37.0 -13.3 -36.3 -43.3 63.5 49.4 47.3 60.3 46.3 44.1 54.0 40.0 37.8 63.7 60.6 54.2 33 61.3 63.4 63.9 20 42 91 Oak Park Blvd East of Pleasant Hill Rd 10,500 35 0.0% 99.4% 0.2% 0.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 721.9 1.5 2.9 347.9 0.7 1.4 81.2 0.2 0.3 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.2 -29.1 -26.1 -5.3 -32.3 -29.3 -11.7 -38.6 -35.6 62.9 45.6 53.9 59.7 42.5 50.7 53.4 36.1 44.4 63.5 60.3 54.0 34 62.2 64.3 64.9 23 49 105 Geary Rd East of Pleasant Hill Rd 12,600 35 0.0% 99.2% 0.3% 0.5% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 864.5 2.6 4.4 416.6 1.3 2.1 97.2 0.3 0.5 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.4 -26.6 -24.4 -4.5 -29.7 -27.5 -10.9 -36.1 -33.8 63.7 48.2 55.6 60.5 45.0 52.4 54.2 38.7 46.1 64.4 61.2 54.9 35 70.4 72.5 73.0 79 171 369 Taylor Blvd South of Withers Ave 22,500 55 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1525.1 20.2 10.9 735.0 9.8 5.3 171.5 2.3 1.2 72.7 79.9 83.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.9 -19.6 -22.3 -4.0 -22.8 -25.5 -10.4 -29.1 -31.8 71.9 60.3 61.5 68.7 57.1 58.4 62.4 50.8 52.0 72.6 69.4 63.1 36 83.6 85.7 86.2 604 1302 2806
I-680 North of N Main Street, Walnut
Creek 272,500 65 0.0% 97.0% 1.3% 1.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 18282.5 245.0 263.9 8810.8 118.1 127.2 2055.9 27.6 29.7 75.5 81.7 85.2 94.0 -4.2 4.5 0 9.2 -9.5 -9.2 6.0 -12.7 -12.4 -0.3 -19.0 -18.7 85.0 72.5 76.3 81.9 69.3 73.1 75.5 63.0 66.8 85.8 82.6 76.3 Calculation Area
dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour Vehicles per Hour Reference Level Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 18-06115 (Pleasant Hill GP) - Exsiting 2022 Output
Inputs Auto Inputs
Distance Adjustments Flow: Daytime Flow: Evening Flow: Night Totals: Daytime Totals: Evening Totals: Night Time of Day Averages ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted
Speed
Limit
Grade % Autos % Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
% Daytime % Evening % Night
Number of
Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance
to
Reciever
Ground
Absorptio
n
Lane
Distance
Daytime
Autos
Daytime
Med Truck
Daytime
Heavy
Evening
Autos
Evening
Med Truck
Evening
Heavy
Night
Autos
Night Med
Truck
Night
Heavy
Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks
Equivalent
Lane
Distance
Distance
Ref
Distance
Propag
Heavy
Truck
Grade
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Autos Med Truck
Heavy
Truck
Day Leq
Evening
Leq
Night Leq
1 65.6 67.7 68.2 38 82 176 Pacheco Blvd North of 1st Ave 23,600 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1599.7 21.2 11.4 770.9 10.2 5.5 179.9 2.4 1.3 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 1.3 -17.5 -20.2 -1.9 -20.6 -23.3 -8.2 -27.0 -29.7 66.5 57.4 59.9 63.3 54.2 56.8 57.0 47.9 50.4 67.8 64.6 58.3 2 60.8 63.0 63.5 18 40 86 Center Ave West of Pacheco Blvd 8,200 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 555.8 7.4 4.0 267.9 3.6 1.9 62.5 0.8 0.4 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.3 -22.1 -24.8 -6.5 -25.2 -27.9 -12.8 -31.6 -34.2 61.7 52.7 55.2 58.6 49.5 52.0 52.2 43.2 45.7 63.0 59.9 53.5 3 64.4 66.5 67.0 32 68 147 Chilpaningo Prkwy West of Pacheco Blvd 23,000 30 0.0% 98.3% 0.3% 1.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1563.8 4.8 22.3 753.6 2.3 10.7 175.8 0.5 2.5 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 1.9 -23.3 -16.6 -1.3 -26.5 -19.8 -7.6 -32.8 -26.1 64.4 49.9 62.2 61.3 46.7 59.0 54.9 40.4 52.7 66.6 63.4 57.1 4 66.4 68.5 69.0 43 93 200 Contra Costa Blvd South of Concord Ave 39,700 30 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2674.5 49.4 19.2 1288.9 23.8 9.3 300.7 5.6 2.2 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 4.2 -13.1 -17.2 1.0 -16.3 -20.4 -5.3 -22.6 -26.7 66.8 60.0 61.6 63.6 56.9 58.4 57.3 50.5 52.1 68.6 65.4 59.1 5 62.3 64.5 65.0 23 50 108 Golf Club Road West of Pacheco Blvd 15,700 30 0.0% 97.4% 1.8% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1057.7 19.5 7.6 509.7 9.4 3.7 118.9 2.2 0.9 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.2 -17.2 -21.3 -3.0 -20.3 -24.4 -9.3 -26.7 -30.8 62.7 56.0 57.5 59.6 52.8 54.4 53.2 46.5 48.1 64.5 61.4 55.0 6 62.4 64.5 65.1 23 50 109 Morello Ave North of Paso Nogal Rd 11,500 35 0.0% 98.2% 0.9% 0.9% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 781.1 7.2 7.2 376.4 3.5 3.5 87.8 0.8 0.8 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.8 -22.2 -22.2 -5.0 -25.4 -25.4 -11.3 -31.7 -31.7 63.2 52.6 57.8 60.0 49.4 54.6 53.7 43.1 48.3 64.6 61.4 55.1 7 57.6 59.8 60.3 11 24 52 Paso Nogal Rd East of Morello Ave 8,600 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 582.9 7.7 4.2 280.9 3.7 2.0 65.6 0.9 0.5 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.6 -20.4 -23.1 -4.8 -23.6 -26.3 -11.1 -29.9 -32.6 57.7 50.6 54.1 54.6 47.4 50.9 48.2 41.1 44.6 59.8 56.7 50.4 8 54.3 56.5 57.0 7 15 32 Paso Nogal Rd East of Alhambra Ave 5,900 25 0.0% 99.7% 0.2% 0.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 406.9 0.8 0.4 196.1 0.4 0.2 45.8 0.1 0.0 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -3.2 -30.2 -33.2 -6.4 -33.3 -36.3 -12.7 -39.7 -42.7 56.2 40.8 44.0 53.0 37.7 40.8 46.7 31.4 34.5 56.6 53.4 47.1 9 56.8 58.9 59.4 10 21 46 Viking Dr West of Contra Costa Blvd 9,100 25 0.0% 99.3% 0.4% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 625.0 2.5 1.9 301.2 1.2 0.9 70.3 0.3 0.2 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.3 -25.3 -26.5 -4.5 -28.4 -29.7 -10.8 -34.8 -36.0 58.0 45.7 50.6 54.9 42.6 47.5 48.6 36.2 41.2 59.0 55.8 49.5 10 60.7 62.8 63.4 18 39 84 Morello Ave South of Viking Dr 14,800 30 0.0% 99.6% 0.2% 0.2% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1019.6 2.0 2.0 491.4 1.0 1.0 114.7 0.2 0.2 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 0.0 -27.0 -27.0 -3.2 -30.1 -30.1 -9.5 -36.5 -36.5 62.4 46.1 51.7 59.3 42.9 48.6 53.0 36.6 42.2 62.9 59.7 53.4 11 58.1 60.2 60.8 12 26 56 Norse Dr North of Taylor Blvd 9,600 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 650.7 8.6 4.6 313.6 4.2 2.2 73.2 1.0 0.5 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.2 -19.9 -22.6 -4.3 -23.1 -25.8 -10.6 -29.4 -32.1 58.2 51.1 54.6 55.0 47.9 51.4 48.7 41.6 45.1 60.3 57.2 50.8 12 69.4 71.6 72.1 69 149 321 Taylor Blvd West of Contra Costa Blvd 34,400 40 0.0% 97.5% 0.4% 2.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2319.9 9.5 50.0 1118.0 4.6 24.1 260.9 1.1 5.6 67.4 76.3 81.2 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 2.3 -21.5 -14.3 -0.8 -24.7 -17.5 -7.2 -31.0 -23.8 69.7 54.8 66.9 66.6 51.7 63.7 60.3 45.3 57.4 71.6 68.5 62.2 13 67.8 69.9 70.5 54 116 250 Contra Costa Blvd North of Beth Dr 37,100 35 0.0% 98.4% 0.3% 1.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2525.0 7.7 33.4 1216.9 3.7 16.1 283.9 0.9 3.8 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 3.3 -21.9 -15.5 0.1 -25.1 -18.7 -6.2 -31.4 -25.0 68.4 53.0 64.6 65.3 49.8 61.4 59.0 43.5 55.1 70.0 66.9 60.5 14 60.3 62.4 63.0 17 37 79 Ellinwood Dr East of Cotra Costa Blvd 15,900 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1077.8 14.3 7.7 519.4 6.9 3.7 121.2 1.6 0.9 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 1.0 -17.7 -20.4 -2.1 -20.9 -23.6 -8.5 -27.2 -29.9 60.4 53.3 56.7 57.2 50.1 53.6 50.9 43.8 47.3 62.5 59.3 53.0 15 58.0 60.2 60.7 12 26 56 Lucille Lane North of Maureen Ln 9,400 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 637.2 8.5 4.6 307.1 4.1 2.2 71.6 1.0 0.5 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.2 -20.0 -22.7 -4.4 -23.2 -25.9 -10.7 -29.5 -32.2 58.1 51.0 54.5 55.0 47.8 51.3 48.6 41.5 45.0 60.2 57.1 50.7 16 68.3 70.5 71.0 58 126 271 Taylor Blvd East of Alhambra Ave 29,800 40 0.0% 98.0% 0.4% 1.6% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 2019.9 8.2 33.0 973.5 4.0 15.9 227.1 0.9 3.7 67.4 76.3 81.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 1.7 -22.2 -16.1 -1.4 -25.3 -19.3 -7.8 -31.7 -25.6 69.0 54.1 64.9 65.8 50.9 61.8 59.5 44.6 55.5 70.5 67.4 61.1 17 68.0 70.1 70.6 55 118 255 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Taylor Blvd 32,500 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.4% 2.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2191.7 9.0 47.2 1056.3 4.3 22.8 246.5 1.0 5.3 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 2.7 -21.2 -14.0 -0.5 -24.4 -17.2 -6.8 -30.7 -23.5 67.8 53.7 66.1 64.7 50.5 62.9 58.3 44.2 56.6 70.2 67.0 60.7 18 71.2 73.3 73.9 91 195 421 Taylor Blvd West of Alhambra Ave 27,400 50 0.0% 96.3% 0.4% 3.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1825.0 7.6 62.5 879.5 3.7 30.1 205.2 0.9 7.0 71.1 78.8 83.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.3 -23.5 -14.3 -2.9 -26.7 -17.5 -9.2 -33.0 -23.8 71.5 55.4 68.7 68.3 52.2 65.6 62.0 45.9 59.3 73.4 70.2 63.9 19 65.5 67.6 68.1 38 81 174 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Grayson Rd 22,300 35 0.0% 98.4% 0.5% 1.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1517.7 7.7 17.0 731.4 3.7 8.2 170.7 0.9 1.9 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 1.1 -21.9 -18.5 -2.1 -25.0 -21.6 -8.4 -31.4 -27.9 66.2 53.0 61.7 63.1 49.8 58.5 56.7 43.5 52.2 67.7 64.5 58.2 20 68.6 70.7 71.2 60 130 280 Taylor Blvd South of Grayson Rd 29,400 40 0.0% 97.8% 0.4% 1.8% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1988.8 8.1 36.6 958.4 3.9 17.6 223.6 0.9 4.1 67.4 76.3 81.2 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 1.7 -22.2 -15.7 -1.5 -25.4 -18.9 -7.8 -31.7 -25.2 69.1 54.1 65.5 65.9 51.0 62.4 59.6 44.7 56.0 70.8 67.6 61.3 21 63.0 65.2 65.7 26 56 120 Gregory Ln East of Pleasant Hill Rd 18,500 30 0.0% 98.3% 0.6% 1.0% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1257.8 7.7 12.8 606.2 3.7 6.2 141.4 0.9 1.4 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.9 -21.2 -19.0 -2.3 -24.4 -22.2 -8.6 -30.7 -28.5 63.5 51.9 59.8 60.3 48.8 56.6 54.0 42.5 50.3 65.2 62.1 55.8 22 65.2 67.4 67.9 36 78 168 Gregory Ln West of Cleaveland Rd 28,400 30 0.0% 98.2% 0.5% 1.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 1929.0 9.8 25.5 929.6 4.7 12.3 216.9 1.1 2.9 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 2.8 -20.2 -16.0 -0.4 -23.3 -19.2 -6.7 -29.6 -25.5 65.3 53.0 62.8 62.2 49.8 59.6 55.9 43.5 53.3 67.4 64.3 57.9 23 61.0 63.1 63.6 19 41 87 Cleaveland Rd South of Gregory Ln 14,000 30 0.0% 98.9% 0.8% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 957.7 7.7 2.9 461.5 3.7 1.4 107.7 0.9 0.3 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 -0.3 -21.2 -25.4 -3.4 -24.4 -28.6 -9.8 -30.7 -34.9 62.3 52.0 53.4 59.1 48.8 50.2 52.8 42.5 43.9 63.2 60.0 53.7 24 70.2 72.4 72.9 78 168 363 Contra Costa Blvd North of Monument Blvd 53,500 35 0.0% 97.5% 0.6% 1.9% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 3607.9 22.2 70.3 1738.8 10.7 33.9 405.7 2.5 7.9 65.1 74.8 80.0 94.0 -4.2 4.5 0 4.8 -17.3 -12.3 1.7 -20.5 -15.4 -4.7 -26.8 -21.8 70.2 57.8 68.1 67.1 54.7 64.9 60.7 48.4 58.6 72.4 69.3 63.0 25 61.7 63.8 64.3 21 45 97 Boyd Rd West of Cleaveland Rd 21,700 25 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1470.9 19.5 10.5 708.9 9.4 5.1 165.4 2.2 1.2 59.4 71.1 77.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 2.4 -16.4 -19.1 -0.8 -19.6 -22.2 -7.1 -25.9 -28.6 61.8 54.6 58.1 58.6 51.5 54.9 52.3 45.1 48.6 63.9 60.7 54.4 26 68.7 70.8 71.4 62 133 287 Monument Blvd East of Buskirk Ave 49,000 35 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 3321.4 44.1 23.7 1600.7 21.2 11.4 373.5 5.0 2.7 65.1 74.8 80.0 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 4.5 -14.3 -17.0 1.3 -17.5 -20.2 -5.0 -23.8 -26.5 69.6 60.6 63.1 66.5 57.4 59.9 60.1 51.1 53.6 70.9 67.8 61.4 27 64.5 66.6 67.1 32 69 149 Buskirk Ave South of Monument Blvd 30,800 30 0.0% 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2102.6 21.3 6.4 1013.3 10.3 3.1 236.4 2.4 0.7 62.5 73.1 78.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 3.2 -16.8 -22.0 0.0 -20.0 -25.2 -6.3 -26.3 -31.5 65.7 56.4 56.8 62.5 53.2 53.6 56.2 46.9 47.3 66.7 63.5 57.2 28 61.4 63.6 64.1 20 44 94 Hookston Rd East of Buskirk Ave 14,900 30 0.0% 98.9% 0.5% 0.6% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1019.2 5.2 6.2 491.2 2.5 3.0 114.6 0.6 0.7 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 0.0 -23.0 -22.2 -3.2 -26.1 -25.3 -9.5 -32.4 -31.7 62.4 50.1 56.5 59.3 46.9 53.4 53.0 40.6 47.0 63.6 60.5 54.1 29 60.4 62.5 63.0 17 37 79 Buskirk Ave South of Mayhew Way 12,300 30 0.0% 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 839.7 8.5 2.6 404.7 4.1 1.2 94.4 1.0 0.3 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -0.8 -20.8 -26.0 -4.0 -23.9 -29.2 -10.3 -30.3 -35.5 61.6 52.3 52.7 58.4 49.1 49.5 52.1 42.8 43.2 62.6 59.4 53.1 30 62.7 64.8 65.3 24 52 113 Oak Park Blvd West of Hook Ave 19,600 30 0.0% 99.1% 0.2% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1343.5 2.7 9.5 647.5 1.3 4.6 151.1 0.3 1.1 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 1.2 -25.7 -20.3 -2.0 -28.9 -23.5 -8.3 -35.2 -29.8 63.6 47.3 58.4 60.5 44.1 55.2 54.2 37.8 48.9 64.9 61.7 55.4 31 58.7 60.8 61.4 13 29 62 Patterson Blvd North of Oak Park Blvd 8,200 30 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 561.5 2.8 2.8 270.6 1.4 1.4 63.1 0.3 0.3 62.5 73.1 78.8 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -2.6 -25.6 -25.6 -5.8 -28.7 -28.7 -12.1 -35.0 -35.0 59.9 47.5 53.1 56.7 44.3 50.0 50.4 38.0 43.6 60.9 57.7 51.4 32 63.7 65.8 66.3 28 61 132 Pleasant Hill Rd North of Oak Park Blvd 13,400 40 0.0% 99.4% 0.5% 0.1% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 921.3 4.6 0.9 444.0 2.2 0.4 103.6 0.5 0.1 67.4 76.3 81.2 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.7 -24.7 -31.7 -4.9 -27.8 -34.8 -11.2 -34.2 -41.1 65.6 51.6 49.4 62.4 48.4 46.3 56.1 42.1 39.9 65.9 62.7 56.4 33 62.9 65.0 65.5 25 54 117 Oak Park Blvd East of Pleasant Hill Rd 15,200 35 0.0% 99.4% 0.2% 0.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 1045.0 2.1 4.2 503.6 1.0 2.0 117.5 0.2 0.5 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -0.6 -27.5 -24.5 -3.7 -30.7 -27.7 -10.0 -37.0 -34.0 64.5 47.2 55.5 61.3 44.1 52.3 55.0 37.7 46.0 65.1 61.9 55.6 34 62.2 64.3 64.9 23 49 105 Geary Rd East of Pleasant Hill Rd 12,600 35 0.0% 99.2% 0.3% 0.5% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 864.5 2.6 4.4 416.6 1.3 2.1 97.2 0.3 0.5 65.1 74.8 80.0 99.5 -4.6 4.5 0 -1.4 -26.6 -24.4 -4.5 -29.7 -27.5 -10.9 -36.1 -33.8 63.7 48.2 55.6 60.5 45.0 52.4 54.2 38.7 46.1 64.4 61.2 54.9 35 71.6 73.7 74.3 96 208 447 Taylor Blvd South of Withers Ave 30,100 55 0.0% 98.0% 1.3% 0.7% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 2040.3 27.1 14.6 983.3 13.0 7.0 229.4 3.0 1.6 72.7 79.9 83.8 97.5 -4.5 4.5 0 0.4 -18.4 -21.1 -2.8 -21.6 -24.2 -9.1 -27.9 -30.6 73.2 61.5 62.8 70.0 58.4 59.6 63.7 52.0 53.3 73.8 70.6 64.3 36 84.1 86.2 86.8 657 1415 3049 I-680
North of N Main Street,
Walnut Creek 308,700 65 0.0% 97.0% 1.3% 1.4% 83.0% 10.0% 7.0% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 20711.2 277.6 298.9 9981.3 133.8 144.1 2329.0 31.2 33.6 75.5 81.7 85.2 94.0 -4.2 4.5 0 9.7 -9.0 -8.7 6.6 -12.2 -11.8 0.2 -18.5 -18.2 85.6 73.0 76.8 82.4 69.8 73.7 76.1 63.5 67.3 86.3 83.1 76.8 Calculation Area
dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour Vehicles per Hour Reference Level Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 18-06115 (Pleasant Hill GP) - 2040 Buildout Output
Inputs Auto Inputs
Distance Adjustments Flow: Daytime Flow: Evening Flow: Night Totals: Daytime Totals: Evening Totals: Night Time of Day Averages Appendix E
Transportation Impact Analysis Report
City of Pleasant Hill
2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
Prepared for:

City of Pleasant Hill
January 2023
WC19-3586
Table of Contents

1. Existing Setting......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Physical Setting......................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Roadway Network.....................................................................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities..........................................................................................................................5

1.1.3 Public Transportation ............................................................................................................................................10

1.1.4 Aviation Facilities.....................................................................................................................................................10

1.2 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................................................................................12

1.2.1 Federal.........................................................................................................................................................................12

1.2.2 State .............................................................................................................................................................................12

1.2.3 Regional......................................................................................................................................................................14

1.2.4 Local .............................................................................................................................................................................16

2. Transportation Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................17

2.1.1 Transportation Impact Assessment Pursuant to CEQA............................................................................17

2.1.2 Significance Criteria and Thresholds ...............................................................................................................18

2.1.3 VMT Impact Methodology and Assumptions..............................................................................................19

2.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................21

3. References ...........................................................................................................................48 Appendices
Appendix 1: VMT Analysis Flowchart
Appendix 2: Detailed Land Uses for Transportation Analysis Scenarios List of Figures
Figure 1: Roadway Network .............................................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 3: Recommended Pedestrian Improvements ..............................................................................................................9 Figure 4: Transit Routes .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 List of Tables
Table 1: City of Pleasant Hill Land Use Summary ................................................................................................................. 36 Table 2: Citywide Home-Based VMT Summary..................................................................................................................... 36 Table 3: Citywide Home-Work VMT Summary...................................................................................................................... 37 Table 4: Countywide VMT Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 5: VMT Reduction Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................................... 39 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
1 1. Existing Setting
In this Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) report, the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan is referred to as the plan, and the Pleasant Hill sphere of influence is referred to as the plan area. This chapter includes a description of the physical and regulatory transportation setting for the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan transportation impacts with respect to all modes of travel (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit).

1.1 Physical Setting

1.1.1 Roadway Network
The roadway network serving the plan area is shown in Figure 1. Key roadways are described below.

1.1.1.1 State Highways
Interstate 680 (I-680) is a north-south freeway which generally runs along the eastern edge of Pleasant Hill and connects I-80 in Fairfield to US 101 and I-280 in Santa Clara County.

State Route 4 (SR 4) is an east-west four-to-six-lane freeway which connects I-80 in Pinole to eastern Contra Costa County and San Joaquin County.

State Route 242 (SR 242) is a north-south freeway that traverses through the east side of Pleasant Hill connecting I-680 to State Route 4 (SR 4).

State Route 24 (SR 24) is an east–west California Scenic Highway that serves the eastern San Francisco Bay Area. This freeway connects the Interstate 580/Interstate 980 interchange in Oakland to the Interstate 680 junction in Walnut Creek. Both Taylor Boulevard and Pleasant Hill Road traversing through the City of Pleasant Hill intersect SR 24 via the City of Lafayette.

1.1.1.2 Arterials and Collectors
As described in the City of Pleasant Hill General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, arterials are major streets carrying the traffic of local and collector streets to and from freeways and other major streets. Collectors are streets for traffic moving between arterial and local streets, generally providing direct access to properties. Local streets provide direct access to properties and are often designed to discourage commute traffic. Key arterials and collectors in the City, as described in the City of Pleasant Hill General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element (August, 2022) are described below.

TAYLOR BOULEVARD

VIKING DRIVE ALHAMBRA AVENUE

RELIEZ VALLEY ROAD

GEARY ROAD

BOYD ROAD

PLEASANT HILL ROAD

LUCILLE LANE

CLEAVELAND ROAD

GREGORY LANE

MORELLO AVE

PASO NOGAL ROAD

CONTRA COSTA BOUELVARD

WILLOW PASS ROAD

GRAYSON ROAD

OAK PARK BOULEVARD

CONCORD AVENUE

CENTER AVENUE

CHILPANCINGO PARKWAY

GOLF CLUB ROAD

MONUMENT BOULEVARD

PUTNAM BOULEVARD

PACHECO BOULEVARD

COGGINS DRIVE

HOOKSTON ROAD PATTERSON BOULEVARD

NORSE DRIVE

ELLINWOOD DRIVE
CAMINO
VERDE

TREAT BOULEVARD

OAK ROAD

BUSKIRK AVE

MORELLO AVENUE
4 680
242
EIR Graphics\WC19-3586_1_RoadNet
Roadway Network
Figure 1
Arterial
City Boundary
Sphere of Inuence
Freeway
Collector
Railroad
Selected Local
Streets
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Source: Draft Pleasant Hill General Plan Update,
Transportation and Circulation Element
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
3 Buskirk Avenue – A north-south arterial street with traffic signals at Monument Boulevard, along the Crossroads Shopping Center, Claire Drive, Mayhew Way, and Oak Park Boulevard-Coggins Drive. Buskirk serves a variety commercial retail and residential land uses and is often utilized by through traffic traveling south from Monument Boulevard to the Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre BART Station and destinations in Walnut Creek and Concord.

Chilpancingo Parkway – An east-west arterial street that connects to Concord Avenue from the east to Morello Avenue to the west in the City of Martinez, CA. Existing traffic signal connections in Pleasant Hill include Contra Costa Boulevard and Old Quarry Road. I-680 access is provided via the interchange at Contra Costa Boulevard. Chilpancingo Parkway attracts regional traffic due to Diablo Valley College (DVC) and adjacent shopping districts. Chilpancingo Parkway also serves adjacent commercial and mediumdensity multifamily residential development. The eastern extension of this parkway is Concord Avenue, a major access route to Downtown Concord.

Contra Costa Boulevard – A north-south arterial street traversing the city parallel to Interstate 680 with freeway access at several locations. Contra Costa Boulevard continues as Pacheco Boulevard north of the North City Limit and connects to North Main Street in Walnut Creek to the south. The boulevard serves as the City’s primary thoroughfare traversing the length of the City and connecting various commercial and business developments, as well as Diablo Valley College (via Viking Drive and Golf Club Road). Contra Costa Boulevard is designated a Route of Regional Significance.

Geary Road – An east-west arterial street connecting the Lafayette/Hwy 24 area via Pleasant Hill Road to the east to Walnut Creek/I-680 along the south edge of the city. Geary Road serves regional traffic and provides a direct connection to the Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre BART Station. Geary Road serves as the City’s southern border with the City to Walnut Creek and provides direct access to various residential and commercial retail districts. Geary Road is designated a Route of Regional Significance.

Gregory Lane – An east-west arterial street connecting Pleasant Hill Road to Contra Costa Boulevard.

Geary Lane begins at its east end as an off-ramp from southbound I-680. West of Pleasant Hill Road, Gregory Lane becomes Grayson Road, a two-lane collector terminating at Reliez Valley Road. Gregory Lane serves east-west traffic through-traffic including residential, church, retail, and office land uses.

Golf Club Road – An east-west four-lane divided arterial street connecting Contra Costa Boulevard to Paso Nogal Road, narrowing to a two-lane road west to its terminus at Contra Costa Country Club. Golf Club Road provides access to residential uses, Diablo Valley College, and several retail centers.

Monument Boulevard – An east-west arterial street connecting Contra Costa Boulevard to Cowell Road and Galindo Street in downtown Concord (the city limits are located just west of Mohr Lane). Monument Boulevard provides regional access to downtown Pleasant Hill and the Crossroads Shopping Center via a single-point urban interchange on I-680.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
4 Oak Park Boulevard – An east-west arterial street connecting Pleasant Hill Road to Interstate 680, where it becomes Coggins Drive, a collector serving the Pleasant Hill / Contra Costa Centre BART Station area.

The boulevard serves both regional traffic and local residential and commercial land uses.

Pleasant Hill Road and Alhambra Avenue – A north-south arterial street that connects Geary Road in Walnut Creek to the south to Alhambra Avenue in Martinez to the north. Pleasant Hill Road/Alhambra Avenue serves intra-city and regional travel, and provides local access to adjacent residential areas and a school. Pleasant Hill Road is designated a collector between Oak Park Boulevard and Gregory Lane.

Pleasant Hill Road/Alhambra Avenue is designated a Route of Regional Significance north of the Taylor Boulevard intersection.

Taylor Boulevard – An arterial street connecting Pleasant Hill Road to Contra Costa Boulevard, continuing as Sunvalley Boulevard east to I-680, and as Willow Pass Road east of I-680 into Concord.

Taylor Boulevard carries both local and regional traffic. Due its regional connectivity, controlled intersections, and limited driveway access, Taylor Boulevard is prone to higher speeds (45 – 55 mph).

Taylor Boulevard, its extension to I-680 via Sunvalley Boulevard as well as its extension to SR 24 via Pleasant Hill Road, is designated a Route of Regional Significance.

Collectors provide access between arterials and local roadways. They connect adjacent neighborhoods, link neighborhoods to arterial streets, and carry through-traffic in residential, industrial, and commercial areas. Primary collectors in Pleasant Hill include:

Boyd Road – An east-west collector street linking Contra Costa Boulevard with Pleasant Hill Road and serving the magnet schools of Sequoia Elementary and Middle Schools serving communities inside and outside of the City of Pleasant Hill.

Coggins Drive – An east-west collector street connecting Buskirk Avenue-Oak Road at Oak Park Boulevard to the eastern city limit, where it turns south and continues as a county roadway adjacent to the Iron Horse Regional Trail.

Cleaveland Road – A short north-south street connecting Downtown Pleasant Hill, Contra Costa Boulevard, and North Main Street.

Ellinwood Drive – A short east-west collector street connecting Contra Costa Boulevard to residential and commercial development between Contra Costa Boulevard and I-680.

Grayson Road – An east-west collector street extending west from Gregory Lane at Pleasant Hill Road to Reliez Valley Road at the entrance to Oakmont Memorial Park.

Hookston Road – A short two-lane east-west collector street connecting Buskirk Avenue south of the Crossroads Shopping Center to Bancroft Road. Hookston Road extends further east as a local roadway serving a residential area.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
5 Morello Avenue – A north-south collector street connecting Chilpancingo Parkway to Taylor Boulevard.

Morello Avenue provides access to Diablo Valley College via Viking Drive and Paso Nogal Road and extends north to Martinez from the intersection at Chilpancingo Parkway.

Norse Drive – A north-south collector street connecting Paso Nogal Road with Taylor Boulevard.

Old Quarry Road – A short north-south collector street connecting Chilpancingo Parkway and Golf Club Road, providing access to Diablo Valley College at Golf Club Road.

Paso Nogal Road – A curving collector street connecting Alhambra Avenue/Pleasant Hill Road just north of the city limits to Morello Avenue and extending from Morello Avenue at a separate intersection to Golf Club Road. Paso Nogal Road provides access to Diablo Valley College via its connection to Golf Club Road and serves direct residential access between Alhambra Avenue/Pleasant Hill Road and Morello Avenue.

Patterson Boulevard and Putnam Boulevard – A north-south collector street connecting Boyd Road to Oak Park Boulevard. Patterson Boulevard serves direct residential access as well as through trips and extends to the south into Walnut Creek as Putnam Boulevard.

Viking Drive – An east-west collector street connecting Morello Avenue to Contra Costa Boulevard, providing access to Diablo Valley College, College Park High School, Valley View Middle School, and providing direct residential access.

The remaining roadways in Pleasant Hill are considered local roadways, whose primary function is to provide direct access to residential and commercial sites.

1.1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

1.1.2.1 Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle planning and design typically relies on guidelines and design standards established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design). The Highway Design Manual provides four distinct types of bikeway facilities, as described below.
• Class I Bikeways (Shared-Use Path) provide a completely separate right-of-way and are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, with vehicle and pedestrian crossflow minimized. In general, bike paths serve corridors where on-street facilities are not feasible or where sufficient right-of-way exists to allow them to be constructed. • Class II Bikeways (Bicycle Lanes) are dedicated lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle lanes are typically at least five feet wide. Adjacent vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted. Buffered bike lanes are dedicated lanes for bicyclists with a designed buffer space adjacent to the vehicle travel lanes, adjacent parking, or both. This buffer space is created with chevron or diagonal striping.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
6 • Class III Bikeways (Bicycle Route) are designated by signs or pavement markings for shared use with pedestrians or motor vehicles but have no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping. Bike routes serve either to a) provide a connection to other bicycle facilities where dedicated facilities are infeasible, or b) designate preferred routes through high-demand corridors. • Class IV Bikeways (Cycle Tracks or Protected Bike Lanes) provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel within a roadway and are protected from other vehicle traffic by physical barriers, including, but not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible vertical barriers such as raised curbs, or parked cars.

The City is preparing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan guides the expansion and improvement of bicycle facilities citywide. Figure 2 shows the existing and recommended bicycle network described in the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Plan is expected to be adopted in 2023. The network includes bicycle facility gap closures on key routes, bicycle facilities, and bicycle facility upgrades (e.g., from Class III to Class I, Class II, or Class IV). The recommended network would create a more complete and connected bicycle network within Pleasant Hill and connect bicyclists to high-demand destinations within and adjacent to the city.

Figure 5-1: Existing and Recommended Bikeway Network
EIR Graphics\WC19-3586_2_PHBikeMap
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Figure 2
Source: Draft Pleasant Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
8 1.1.2.2 Pedestrian Facilities
The City’s pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, curb ramps, and pedestrian-scale street lighting, as well as the Contra Costa Canal Trail which runs north-south through the city and connects to the Iron Horse Regional Trail, and several other shorter off-road pathways. The Contra Costa Canal Trail and Iron Horse Regional Trail help provide access to commercial and residential areas, schools, public transportation, and other community facilities throughout Pleasant Hill and its surrounding communities.

While sidewalks are provided on many city streets, some streets have gaps in the sidewalk network. In addition, walking can be uncomfortable on higher-traffic, higher-speed streets such as Contra Costa Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard, Gregory Lane, and others. Such streets present an obstacle for pedestrians needing to cross the street, as does Interstate 680. These barriers can discourage walking as a means to get to work, school, shopping, and recreational destinations.

As noted above, the City is preparing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that will guide the expansion and improvement of pedestrian facilities Citywide. The Plan is expected to be adopted in 2023. Figure 3 shows the existing and planned pedestrian improvements in the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Figure 6-1: Recommended Pedestrian Improvements
EIR Graphics\WC19-3586_3_RecPedImprov
Existing and Recommended Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 3
Source: Draft Pleasant Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
10 1.1.3 Public Transportation
Pleasant Hill’s central location within the East Bay provides access to surrounding cities and communities, as well as to other parts of the San Francisco Bay Area. While the suburban setting lends itself to vehicular use as a preferred mode of travel, many trips can be made by public transit. The city’s transit services are described below.

BART
The Pleasant Hill BART Station is located just southeast of the city limits in the unincorporated County area, at Contra Costa Centre. The Station provides connections for all modes of travel and serves as a transit village for local and regional transit services. The BART Yellow Line serves travel between Pittsburg/ Antioch and San Francisco, including the San Francisco International Airport (as shown in Figure 4). Via connections in Oakland, riders can travel to Oakland International Airport, Richmond, Milpitas, and Dublin/Pleasanton. Contra Costa Centre is also home to several regional and local bus routes with service to San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Fairfield, Vallejo, and Pleasanton/Dublin. In addition to the Contra Costa County Transit Authority’s County Connection routes, described below, regional connections are provided by Fairfield and Suisun Transit, Solano Express, and Wheels Express.

County Connection
County Connection routes traverse the city, providing access to Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill BART, Downtown Pleasant Hill, the Martinez Amtrak Station, and other key destinations (refer to Figure 4).

1.1.4 Aviation Facilities
The City of Pleasant Hill is served by San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Oakland International Airport (OAK). SFO enplaned and deplaned over 16 million passengers in 2020 and facilitated takeoffs of air carriers, regional jets, general aviation propeller aircraft, commuter propeller aircraft, business jets, fixed-wing military aircraft, and both civilian and military helicopters. SFO is approximately 26 miles southwest of the city. OAK served approximately 13.4 million passengers in 2019, and serves major all-cargo carriers such as FedEx and UPS. OAK is approximately 15 miles southwest of the city.

Additionally, the Buchanan Field Airport, a small airport primarily serving charter aircrafts, private aircrafts, and student pilots, is less than 0.5 miles northeast of the General Plan area. 680
4 242

TAYLOR BLVD

ALHAMBRA AVE

GEARY RD

BOYD RD

PLEASANT HILL RD

GREGORY LN

MORELLO AVE

PASO NOGAL

CONTRA COSTA BLVD

WILLOW PASS RD

GRAYSON RD

OAK PARK BLVD

CONCORD AVE

MONUMENT BLVD

PUTNAM BLVD

GRAYSON RD

PASO NOGAL

OAK PARK BLVD
16 18
18 19
91X
91X
91X
20 19
98X 98X 18 28 99X
99X
98X
98X
14 9
18 14
15 14
7 11
9 18
19 28
17 16 18
16 16
18 9
98X
9 7 9
11 14
15 18
311
311
316
316
316
Pleasant Hill
BART
Diablo Valley
College
9 18
20 28
314 316
314
314
316
316
316
320
320
320
EIR Graphics\WC19-3586_4_TransitNet
Public Transit
Figure 4
0 0.25 0.5 1
County Connection Miles
BART
City Boundary
Sphere of Inuence
Highway
Roadways
Railroad
Creek Drainage
Source: Central Contra Costa Transportation Authority, September 2022 Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
12 1.2 Regulatory Setting

1.2.1 Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation and circulation are applicable to the project.

1.2.2 State

1.2.2.1 Assembly Bill 1358
Assembly Bill 1358, also known as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, requires cities and counties to include “Complete Street” policies in their general plans. These policies address the safe accommodation of all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, public transit vehicles and riders, children, the elderly, and the disabled. These policies can apply to new streets as well as the redesign of corridors.

The City of Pleasant Hill adopted its Complete Streets policy on January 28, 2013.

1.2.2.2 Assembly Bill 43
Assembly Bill 43, also known as Traffic Safety, allows local government agencies to reduce vehicle speeds to accommodate vulnerable users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, seniors, and wheelchair users to improve traffic safety. AB 43 takes effect in July 2024.

The City of Pleasant Hill can evaluate changes to its speed limit practices as AB 43 takes effect following adoption of the General Plan.

1.2.2.3 Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375 provides guidance regarding curbing emissions from cars and light trucks. There are four major components to SB 375. First, SB 375 requires regional greenhouse gas emission targets. These targets must be updated every 8 years in conjunction with the revision schedule of the housing and transportation elements of local general plans. Second, Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets.

Third, SB 375 requires housing elements and transportation plans to be synchronized on 8-year schedules.

Finally, Metropolitan Planning Organizations must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques that are consistent with the guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission.

1.2.2.4 Senate Bill 743
Passed in 2013, California Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. The change is being made by replacing Level of Service (LOS) as a performance metric with a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) approach.

This shift in transportation impact focus is intended to better align transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
13 development, and improve public health through the development of multi-modal transportation networks. LOS or other delay metrics may still be used to evaluate the impact of projects on drivers as part of land use entitlement review and traffic impact fee programs.

In December 2018, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, including the incorporation of SB 743 modifications. The Guidelines’ changes were approved by the Office of Administrative Law and as of July 1, 2020 are now in effect statewide.

To help aid lead agencies with SB 743 implementation, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) produced the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA that provides guidance about the variety of implementation questions they face with respect to shifting to a VMT metric. Key guidance from this document includes the following:
• VMT is the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impact. • OPR recommends tour-based and trip-based travel models to estimate VMT, but ultimately defers to local agencies to determine the appropriate tools.
• OPR recommends measuring VMT for residential and office projects on a “per rate” basis. • OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15% below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. In other words, an office project that generates VMT per employee that is more than 85% of the regional VMT per employee could result in a significant impact. OPR notes that this threshold is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals.
• OPR recommends that where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-thansignificant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply.
• Lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own significance thresholds.

1.2.2.5 Assembly Bill 747 and Senate Bill 99
Assembly Bill (AB) 747 (2019) requires that the safety element be reviewed and updated to identify vehicle evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This will be a requirement for all safety elements or updates to hazard mitigation plans completed after January of 2022.

SB 99 (2019) requires review and update of the safety element to include information to identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two vehicle emergency evacuation routes. In essence, this legislation assists in identifying neighborhoods and households within a hazard area that have limited vehicle accessibility. This is intended to assist the City with identifying opportunities to improve connectivity and evacuation capacity (generally).

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
14 1.2.2.6 Caltrans
Caltrans issued the VMT-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG) in May 2020, providing the process by which Caltrans will review and assess VMT impacts of land development projects. The TISG generally aligns with the guidance in the OPR Technical Advisory.

Caltrans also issued the Transportation Analysis Framework (TAF) in September 2020, which details methodology for calculating induced travel demand for capacity increasing transportation projects on the State Highway System. Caltrans also issued the Transportation Analysis Under CEQA (TAC) guidance in September 2020 which describes significance determinations for capacity increasing projects on the State Highway System. It is noted that the Housing Element Update does not propose any changes to the Caltrans owned and operated network.

Caltrans also issued Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioner Guidance in December 2020, describing the methods with which Caltrans will assess the safety impacts of projects on the Caltrans owned and operated network. This guidance states that Caltrans will provide its safety assessment to lead agencies for inclusion in environmental documents.

Finally, Caltrans has adopted procedures to oversee construction activities on and around its facilities. The Caltrans Construction Manual (Caltrans, 2020b) describes best practices for construction activities, including personnel and equipment safety requirements, temporary traffic control, signage, and other requirements aimed at reducing construction-related hazards and constructing projects safely and efficiently. Any work proposed on Caltrans facilities would be required to abide by these requirements.

1.2.3 Regional

1.2.3.1 Contra Costa County Congestion Management Program The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is Contra Costa County’s designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA). It is responsible for implementing programs to ensure roadway vehicle levels remain manageable. Pleasant Hill serves on the Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) that includes Contra Costa County and the cities of Clayton, Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek.

As the CMA, CCTA is in charge of coordinating land use, air quality, and transportation planning among local jurisdictions. A Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created to spend the funds allocated to these projects, known as Measure J. This measure is a one-half cent Countywide sales tax used for transportation improvements within the County. The revenue must be spent on projects and programs included in the CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan (Expenditure Plan). The Expenditure Plan designates 18% of the annual sales tax revenue as “return-to-source” funds. They City’s eligibility for these funds is contingent on compliance with the City’s Growth Management Program (GMP), reflected in the Growth Management section of the General Plan.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
15 1.2.3.2 Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan
As a member of CCTA, the City of Pleasant Hill is active in the development of the Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP), intended to carry out the following Countywide transportation goals:
• Enhance the movement of people and goods on highways and arterial roads. • Manage the impacts of growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy and preserve its environment. • Provide and expand safe, convenient, and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. • Maintain the transportation system.

The CTP incorporates five sub-regional Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans).

This is one of the primary vehicles for implementing achieving the Measure J Growth Management Program’s goal of reducing the cumulative impacts of growth. The Action Plans also fulfill a key requirement of CCTA’s Congestion Management Program. This is a State-mandated program for evaluating the impact of land use decisions on the regional transportation system and establishing performance measures. Each Action Plan contains these components:
• Long range assumptions about future land uses based on local general plans and travel demand based on household and job growth.
• Multi-modal transportation objectives that can be measured and timed. • Specific actions to be implemented by each jurisdiction. • A process for consultation on environmental documents. • A procedure for reviewing the impacts of local General Plan amendments that could affect the transportation objectives.
• A schedule for reviewing and updating the Action Plans.

The City of Pleasant Hill is included in the TRANSPAC Central County Action Plan. The Action Plan includes both regional actions and actions for specific routes. There are 10 Routes of Regional Significance within Pleasant Hill:
• Interstate 680
• State Route 242
• State Route 4
• Alhambra Avenue
• Contra Costa Boulevard
• Geary Road
• North Main Street (Astrid Drive to Oak Park Boulevard-Coggins Drive) • Pacheco Boulevard (Muir Road to Second Avenue South)
• Pleasant Hill Road
• Taylor Boulevard
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
16 1.2.3.3 CCTA VMT Guidance for Member Agencies
The CCTA has developed guidance for member jurisdictions to use in developing their own VMT analysis methods, metrics, and thresholds of significance. The CCTA’s Growth Management Program Implementation Guide (Revised February 17, 2021), Appendix F (CCTA Recommended Methodology) describes the recommendations. A flow chart describing the recommended methodology is included in Appendix 1. The City of Pleasant Hill has chosen to follow the CCTA guidance. More detail on the VMT analysis methodology, metrics, and thresholds of significance are provided in Section 1.3.3, Methodology and Assumptions.

1.2.4 Local

1.2.4.1 Pleasant Hill General Plan
The Pleasant Hill General Plan (2003) is a comprehensive long-range general plan for the physical development of the City of Pleasant Hill. The General Plan contains the current City of Pleasant Hill Transportation and Circulation Element, which was adopted in 2003. The various elements within the General Plan include goals and policies for the physical development of the City. The proposed Project would update and replace the 2003 General Plan.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
17 2. Transportation Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
This chapter describes the analysis techniques, assumptions, and results used to identify potential impacts of the proposed plan on the transportation system. Transportation/traffic impacts are described and assessed, and mitigation measures are recommended for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant.

2.1.1 Transportation Impact Assessment Pursuant to CEQA State law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts are to be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacity-increasing improvements, which in turn could result in additional environmental impacts (e.g., to biological and cultural resources). Depending on circumstances, and a lead agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the California Legislature passed legislation with the intention of ultimately doing away with LOS in most instances as a basis for transportation impact analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of Senate Bill 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, Subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Policy and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” CEQA Guidelines Section 21099(b)(2) further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.)
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
18 Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) [regarding roadway capacity], a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”

2.1.2 Significance Criteria and Thresholds
The significance criteria used to evaluate the plan transportation impacts are based on State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Transportation section), as well as VMT thresholds of significance recommended by the CCTA.

The following describes the significance criteria used to identify transportation impacts associated with implementation of the plan. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the plan would:

1. Conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b);

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment); or

4. Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.

Significance Criterion 1 above pertains to consistency with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, and policies. To determine significance under Criterion 1, the following specific thresholds of significance are applied.

The plan would result in a significant impact related to the roadway circulation system if the 2040 General Plan would:

1. Disrupts existing roadways;

2. Interfere with planned roadway facilities; or

3. Conflict with applicable roadway plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

The plan would result in a significant impact related to the transit circulation system if the 2040 General Plan would:

1. Disrupt existing transit services or facilities;

2. Conflict with an existing or planned transit facility; or

3. Conflict with transit policies adopted by the City of Pleasant Hill or the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

The plan would result in a significant impact related to the bicycle circulation system if the 2040 General Plan would:

1. Disrupt existing bicycle facilities;

2. Interfere with planned bicycle facilities; or,

3. Conflict with applicable bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
19 The plan would result in a significant impact related to the pedestrian circulation system if the 2040 General Plan would:

1. Disrupt existing pedestrian facilities; or

2. Interfere with planned pedestrian facilities; or

3. Conflict with applicable pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Significance Criterion 2 pertains to VMT. To determine significance under Criterion 2, the following specific thresholds of significance are applied.

The plan would result in a significant impact if the 2040 General Plan would:

1. Result in Citywide home-based VMT1 per resident that is higher than 85% of the Countywide average home-based VMT per resident;

2. Result in Citywide home-work VMT2 per employee that is higher than 85% of the Countywide average home-work VMT per employee; or

3. Increases the 2040 countywide boundary VMT per service population. (refer to the following section for more information related to VMT impact methodology and assumptions).

Significance Criterion 3 pertains to the creation of transportation hazards. To determine significance under Criterion 3, the following specific thresholds of significance are applied.

The impact would be significant if the Plan resulted in transportation facilities that do not conform to applicable City and industry design standards for roadways, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities.

Significance Criterion 4 pertains to the adequacy of emergency access. To determine significance under Criterion 4, the following specific thresholds of significance are applied.

This impact would be significant if roadway geometric design features were not designed to City standards and standard engineering practices were not followed, thereby resulting in obstacles to emergency responders.

2.1.3 VMT Impact Methodology and Assumptions
The VMT analysis methodology utilizes the procedures described in the CCTA’s Growth Management Program Implementation Guide (Revised February 17, 2021), Appendix F. The procedures are summarized below.
1 Home-based VMT is VMT generated by trips to and from the home, made by residents, deliveries, etc., and excludes trips made by residents between non-home locations (such as trips between their workplace and other destinations during the day).
2 Home-work VMT is VMT generated by employee trips between the home and the workplace, and excludes other workplace trips such as visitors, vendors, and deliveries.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
20 2.1.3.1 Project Screening
There are five screening criteria that can be applied to screen projects out of conducting project-level VMT analysis.

1. CEQA Exemption. Any project that is exempt from CEQA is not required to conduct a VMT analysis.

2. Small Projects. Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Small projects are defined as having 10,000 square feet or less of non-residential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day.

3. Local-Serving Uses. Projects that consist of Local-Serving Uses can generally be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary, since these types of projects will primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations.

4. Projects Located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This exemption would not apply if the project:
◦ Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
◦ Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the lead agency (if the agency allows but does not require the project to supply a certain amount of parking);
◦ Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)); or ◦ Results in a net reduction in multi-family housing units.

5. Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

For residential projects, a low VMT area is defined as an area with existing home-based VMT per resident that is 85% or less of the existing Countywide average.

As will be discussed below under Impact 4.14-2, the Project does not meet these five potential screening approaches and thus requires a full VMT assessment.

2.1.3.2 Projects Requiring VMT Analysis
A project not excluded from VMT analysis through the screening process described above is subject to a VMT analysis to determine if it has a significant VMT impact. The analysis scenarios and significance assessment are described below.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
21 2.1.3.2.1 Analysis Scenarios and Significance Test
The following scenarios are addressed in the VMT analysis. Note that, while the CCTA guidance recommends that VMT impacts be evaluated against baseline (existing) conditions, for this analysis the home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee of the Project is evaluated under future (2040) conditions, because the Project is build-out of the city under the General Plan. In addition to the comparison of the Project’s 2040 home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee to the baseline metrics, a cumulative assessment of the project’s effect on total countywide VMT rates (boundary VMT) is presented.
• Baseline (2022) Conditions: The baseline (2022) CCTA model is used to determine the baseline home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee for all traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the city limits, as well as to determine the countywide average home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee, and the 85% values of these metrics. • 2040 No Project Conditions: The Year 2040 CCTA model is adjusted to reflect build-out of the city under the existing General Plan, and is used to determine the 2040 No Project home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comprising the city limits.
• 2040 Plus Project Conditions: The Year 2040 CCTA model is adjusted to reflect build-out of the city under the proposed General Plan Update, and is used to determine the 2040 No Project homebased VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comprising the city limits.
• Impact Significance Assessment: The 2040 Plus Project home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee for the city of Pleasant Hill (all TAZs) is compared to the 2022 countywide home-based VMT per resident and home-work VMT per employee. If the citywide values are higher than 85% of the countywide average values, the impact is significant. • Cumulative Analysis and Significance Assessment (Project’s Effect on Total Countywide VMT): The total countywide VMT per service population (defined as VMT generated by all trip types on all roadways within the county divided by all residents and employees) is compared for the 2040 Plus Project condition against the 2040 No Project condition. If the Project causes total countywide VMT per service population to increase, this would constitute a significant impact.

2.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Criterion 1: Would implementation of the plan conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Impact 1a: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the transit system. (Less than Significant Impact) This impact would be significant if the Project would disrupt existing transit services or facilities, conflict with an existing or planned transit facility, or conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Pleasant Hill or the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
22 Development under the General Plan Update would not obstruct existing transit services or facilities, nor would it conflict with existing or planned facilities. All new development would be subject to City discretionary review, allowing the City to ensure that project designs would not interfere with transit operations. Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would increase the number of potential transit users on the various transit systems serving the city. Increased users would result in a correlated increase in demand for transit. Additionally, roadway traffic congestion caused from population and employment growth in the city facilitated by the General Plan Update could affect transit corridors by increasing travel times and decreasing headway reliability for transit vehicles.

The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan Update contains the following goals and policies that would support reducing traffic congestion and improving transit connectivity:

Goal TC-1: Establish and maintain a safe and efficient circulation system that emphasizes the use of existing arterial and collector roadways, paths, and bike lanes.

TC-1.2 Multi-Modal Travel Options
Develop a connected network of vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that provide continuous, safe, and comfortable travel for users of all ages, abilities, and transportation modes. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 2A] TC-1.3 Community Input on Complete Streets
When planning and designing for complete streets, receive input from groups and individuals representing the various types of users of City streets. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 2B]
TC-1.4 Community Input on Roadway Improvements
Support the sponsoring of forums to obtain citizen input to develop roadway improvements aimed at improving traffic circulation, reduce traffic speeding, and maximizing person throughput. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 3.1, modified]
Goal TC-4: Reduce congestion and vehicle trips through land use planning.

TC-4.1 Transportation Mode Mix
Plan for appropriate mix of transportation modes and the infrastructure to support these modes to meet community needs. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 5A] TC-4.2 Develop Thoroughfares
Develop and improve thoroughfares based on existing and proposed land use patterns and projected demand. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 5B] TC-4.4 Infill Development
Support infill and redevelopment in existing urban areas and around key transit facilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Growth Management Policy 1B] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
23 TC-4.5 Correlation Between Land Use and Transportation Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system, such as locating development near transit routes and high quality bicycle/pedestrian facilities, minimizing new driveways, consolidating parking, and other best practice urban design measures. [Source: Existing General Plan, Growth Management Goal 1, Edited] Goal TC-5: Support a vibrant, walkable environment that encourages alternative (non-driving_ modes of transportation.

TC-5.1 Evaluate Multi-Modal Facility Needs
Evaluate the needs of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and/or access for new development as part of the review process, and require new development to incorporate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access where feasible and appropriate, consistent with the Circulation Element and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (when adopted). [Source:

Existing General Plan, Growth Management Program 3.3]
Goal TC-8: Encourage the development of a comprehensive and integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design features that allow safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families.

TC-8.1 Complete Streets Principles
Apply complete streets principles when building new, or rehabilitating existing, roadways, consider the following design elements:
♦ Sidewalks and curbs as a standard design principle.
♦ Bicycle lanes and/or shared lanes as a standard design principle. ♦ Transit accessibility as a standard design principle. ♦ Shade trees and planting strips as a standard design principle along roadways [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 2.3, modified] TC-8.2 Review for Complete Streets
Review street reconstruction, new development, and utility projects to incorporate complete street elements when feasible, including trails, bus stop enhancements, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 2.4, modified]
Goal TC-13: Reduce congestion and vehicle trips through non-automobile transportation.

TC-13.1 Bus and Rail Services
Coordinate with local transit providers (i.e., bus, paratransit, and rail service) to provide expanded schedules and services that meet the needs of Pleasant Hill residents. [Source:

Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 6A, modified] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
24 TC-13.2 Innovative Transportation Technologies
Work with transit providers, employers, schools, and developers to encourage innovative technologies that promote more effective and expanded use of transit and facilitate other innovations to serve first and last mile travel, such as mobility hubs and micro-mobility (e-scooters, e-bikes). [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 4.7 and

6.7, modified]
TC-13.3 Support County Connection Improvements
Support County Connection to improve all types of accessibility and comfort for their facilities and to incorporate intermodal facilities where feasible. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 6.6, modified]
TC-13.4 Transit for Commuters and Special Needs Populations Work with transit providers and other regional TDM entities to promote and incentivize use of transit for commuters, seniors, students, and persons with disabilities. [Source:

Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 6.9, modified] TC-13.5 Senior Van Service
Maintain the City's Senior Van Service for residents over the age of 55, subject to the availability of funding. [Source: Existing General Plan, Growth Management Program 3.4] The General Plan Update goals and policies listed above encourage an increase in transit ridership, decreased dependence on motor vehicles, and reduce transit delays. While the proposed Project could add peak hour transit riders, implementation of the proposed project would not disrupt existing or interfere with planned transit services or facilities.

The Contra Costa Transportation Authority Countywide Transportation Plan (2017) contains goals and policies to manage the county’s transportation system, including several policies relating to the preservation and enhancement of transit service, in partnership with local jurisdictions, as the county grows. These goals and policies are consistent with the General Plan Update goals and policies and will result in coordinated planning for the expansion of transit service to meet demand as the City of Pleasant Hill grows under the General Plan Update.

Goal 1: Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes.

Policy 1.1: Efficiency. Increase the efficiency of highways and arterial roads through capital investments, operational enhancements, and use of technology Policy 1.2: Partnerships. Engage in partnerships with jurisdictions, stakeholders, and other agencies to identify and implement strategies for managing congestion and increasing multi-modal mobility.

Policy 1.4: Street and Roadway Improvements. Improve the highway and arterial system to influence the location and nature of anticipated growth in accordance with the Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
25 General Plans of local jurisdictions and consistent with Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted Countywide Transportation Plan.

Goal 2: Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa’s economy, preserve its environment and support its communities.

Policy 2.1: Cooperative Planning. Continue to require cooperative transportation and land use planning among Contra Costa County, cities, towns, and transportation agencies.

Goal 3: Expand safe, convenient, and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle.

Policy 3.1: Transit Service Expansion. Help fund the expansion of existing transit services and regional express lanes, and maintenance of existing operations, including BART, bus transit, school buses, and paratransit.

Policy 3.2: Transit Service Coordination. Link transit investments to increased coordination and integration of public transit services, and improved connections between travel modes.

Policy 3.3: Complete Streets. Require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies and standards for “complete streets” that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments, infill development areas (“Priority Development Areas”), and transit priority areas.

Policy 3.5: Alternate Modes. Promote the formation of more carpools and vanpools, and greater use of transit, bicycling, and walking.

Goal 4: Maintain the transportation system.

Policy 4.1: Stable Funding Sources. Advocate for stable sources of funds for transit operations and other programs that support the transportation system.

Policy 4.2: Maintenance. Require and fund programs for effective preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of the transportation system (“deferred maintenance”).

Policy 4.3: Long-Term Needs. Secure funding that will maintain the long-term health of all components of the transportation system.

Based on the discussion above, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact 1b: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway system. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation).

This impact would be significant if the Project would disrupt existing or planned roadway facilities or conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding the roadway system.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
26 The 2040 General Plan includes modifications to existing street facilities to create a more pedestrianoriented and bicycle-oriented street network. These modifications could cause existing and future local and regional traffic to circulate differently. The expected influence on existing and future traffic would be minimal because roadway modifications would conform to State and local standards and generally be implemented to improve circulation. Overall, the General Plan Update’s proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements would not conflict with existing or planned roadway facilities because the proposed street changes are additions of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and do not specifically propose any reduction in vehicle lanes.

The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan Update contains the following goals and policies that guide development and maintenance of the city’s roadway network:

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
27 Goal TC-1: Establish and maintain a safe and efficient circulation system that emphasizes the use of existing arterial and collector roadways, paths, and bike lanes.

Policy TC-1.1 Rights-of-Way. Maintain existing circulation system rights-of-way, except as necessary to address localized congestion areas.

Policy TC-1.2 Multi-Modal Travel Options. Develop a connected network of vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that provide continuous, safe, and comfortable travel for users of all ages, abilities, and transportation modes.

Goal TC-2: Improve traffic circulation along the city roadway network.

Policy TC-2.1 Traffic Plan Requirement. Require new development to establish comprehensive construction traffic plans, for approval by City staff, which denote haul routes, detours, and other factors that may impact public safety.

Policy TC-2.3 LOS Standards and Conditions of Approval. Approve new development which at least meets or is mitigated to meet adopted LOS standards as documented in the City Findings of Consistency.

Policy TC-2.4 Traffic Impact Study. Require traffic impact studies (including VMT and LOS analysis) as part of the application review process for development projects.

Policy TC-2.5 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Require robust transportation demand management with all new private development that requires establishment of incentives and programs to reduce traffic congestion including annual reporting to ensure transportation demand management goals for a project are being met and to correct transportation demand management practices.

Goal TC-3: Encourage slower vehicle speeds and discourage cut-through traffic along City roadways, especially within residential neighborhoods and along freeway bypass routes.

Policy TC-3.1 Residential Streets. Prioritize traffic calming improvements and enforcement efforts along residential roadways that have recurring cut-through traffic or excessive speeding.

Policy TC-3.2 Arterial and Collector Streets. Minimize opportunities for regionally generated cutthrough vehicle travel in the city as part of new roadway projects or projects within public roadways.

Policy TC-3.3 Vehicle Traffic Calming Devices. Consider traffic calming devices such as lane narrowing, widening medians, neighborhood traffic circles, roundabouts, and landscaping to discourage cut-through vehicle traffic.

Policy TC-3.4 Alternative Methods to Prevent Cut-Through Vehicle Traffic. Consider the use of alternative street surfacing materials, traffic diverters, special designs, and stop signs to prevent cut-through traffic on residential streets.

Policy TC-3.5 Monument Triangle Congestion. Support the reconfiguration of the Monument Triangle circulation network and to improve vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety while reducing congestion anticipated from future development.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
28 Policy TC-3.6 School Area Congestion. Work with the Mount Diablo Unified School District, private schools, and Diablo Valley College to address traffic speeds and congestion near schools and on key access routes.

Goal TC-4: Reduce congestion and vehicle trips through land use planning.

Policy TC-4.5 Correlation Between Land Use and Transportation. Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system, such as locating development near transit routes and high-quality bicycle/pedestrian facilities, minimizing new driveways, consolidating parking, and other best practice urban design measures.

Goal TC-7: Focus on integrated regional approaches to the use of inter-jurisdictional trails such as the Contra Costa Canal Trail and the Iron Horse Trail for all trip purposes.

Policy TC-7.1 Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Planning. Participate in multi-jurisdictional transportation planning through TRANSPAC and CCTA activities to ensure all City planning efforts, projects, and developments comply with regional requirements and standards.

Goal TC-8: Encourage the development of a comprehensive and integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design features that allow safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families.

Policy TC-8.5 Reduce Vehicle Speeds. Support the reduction of vehicle speeds using engineering and design techniques, community education, and evaluation and planning strategies rather than relying solely on enforcement.

Policy TC-8.8 New Development Neighborhood Traffic Impacts. Require developer participation in the cost of installation of traffic calming measures to reduce neighborhood traffic impacts through fee payments or direct contribution as a condition of approval, if applicable.

Policy TC-8.11 Traffic Safety Corridors. Identify Traffic Safety Corridors along Suggested Routes to School and protected residential neighborhoods as allowed through California Assembly Bill 43 – Traffic Safety to establish lower speed streets to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Goal TC-14: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods to support commerce, industry, and the community.

Policy TC-14.1 Minimize Truck Conflicts. Minimize potential conflicts between trucks and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel on streets designated as truck routes.

Policy TC-14.2 Minimize Truck Loading and Unloading Conflicts. Minimize potential conflicts between truck loading and unloading and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel.

Policy TC-14.4 Truck Route Network. Develop a signage program that identifies truck routes.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
29 Implementation of the above 2040 General Plan policies would ensure consistency with circulation system policies related to roadway facilities.

It is noted that buildout of the proposed General Plan Update land use plan – an approximately 100% increase in residential units and a 50% increase in non-residential uses – would increase the vehicle travel demand on the city’s roadway network. Increased vehicle travel demand may result in increased congestion, because no roadway widenings are proposed in the General Plan Update. The travel demand forecasting performed for the General Plan Update indicates that certain segments of the following roadways would exceed the daily vehicle capacities, as defined in the Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model:
• Contra Cost Boulevard, Beth Drive to Sunvalley Boulevard • Ellinwood Drive, East of Contra Costa Boulevard
• Buskirk Avenue, Monument Boulevard to Hookston Road
• Oak Park Boulevard, Hook Avenue to Putnam Boulevard
It is important to note that the forecasting encompasses full build-out of all parcels to their maximum capacity, as defined by the General Plan Update team, and represents growth over a much longer period than the 18 years represented in the travel demand model (2022 to 2040). Therefore, these over-capacity conditions may not materialize by 2040.

Growth associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan could interfere with the operation of existing roadway facilities or conflict with planned roadway facilities; however, implementation of the aforementioned roadway facility policies would minimize such potential conflicts. Therefore, with respect to conflicts with circulation system policies related to roadway facilities, operational impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Impact 1c: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the bicycle system. (Less than Significant Impact) The project would create a significant impact related to the bicycle system if the General Plan Update:

1. Disrupts existing bicycle facilities;

2. Interferes with planned bicycle facilities; or,

3. Conflicts with applicable bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Growth in residential and non-residential uses under the General Plan Update could result in more bicycle use on existing facilities. The General Plan Update includes complete streets policies, new bicycle facilities, and transportation and circulation goals and policies to accommodate increased bicycle demands generated by new development. This network would accommodate bicycle demand generated by the land development. Examples of goals and policies in the General Plan Update Transportation and Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
30 Circulation Element that would encourage bicycle transportation modes while also ensuring bicycle facilities are adequate include the following:

Goal TC-11: Increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips by users of all ages and abilities.

TC-11.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Support a network of safe and comfortable bikeway and pedestrian facilities connecting neighborhoods and destinations in Pleasant Hill and adjacent jurisdictions. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 1.1, modified] TC-11.2 Street Design
Require street cross-sections to accommodate bicyclists, micro-mobility users, and pedestrians. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 1.2, modified] TC-11.3 Protected Bicycle Facilities
Consider incorporating protected bicycle and pedestrian facilities in higher density land use areas and along major transportation corridors to the greatest extent feasible. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 5.1, modified] Goal TC-12: Strive to eliminate all fatal and serious injury bicycle and pedestrian related crashes.

TC-12.1 Collision Database
Create a traffic count data and collision database and work with applicable City departments and law enforcement to map collision data for identifying problem areas. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 2.1] TC-12.2 Design Standards
Support design upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to increase connectivity and safety citywide. [Source: New Policy]
TC-12.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Education
Support bicycle and pedestrian safety education in all Pleasant Hill schools. Continue to support Safe Routes to Schools programs to address pedestrian and bicycle safety. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 2.3] TC-12.4 Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
Support Safe Routes to School infrastructure and education & encouragement programs to address and enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Develop Suggested Route to School maps for Pleasant Hill schools to help prioritize infrastructure improvements along routes supporting student commutes. [Source: New Policy] TC-12.5 Technology Safety Enhancements
Identify and deploy technology solutions to support bicycle and pedestrian safety through the City including passive detection systems at traffic signals and trail crossings. [Source: New Policy]
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
31 TC-12.6 Bike Route Connectivity
Develop and sign a network of bicycle routes that provide connectivity between homes, job centers, schools and other frequently visited destinations. [Source: New Policy] TC-12.7 Emphasis on Walking and Biking
Encourage more people to walk and bicycle for a variety of purposes.

TC-12.8 Bicycle Parking
Support the expansion of the bicycle parking network in Pleasant Hill. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Goal 3]
TC-12.9 Supportive Infrastructure
Encourage the implementation of supportive infrastructure and programs.

TC-12.10 Safe Intersections for Bicycles
Ensure adequate crossing times and detection for bicycle users at signalized intersections.

TC-12.11 Commute Information
Promote 511 Contra Costa alternative commute mode materials to encourage reduced reliance on vehicular use.

TC-12.12 Bike to Work Day
Promote and support a Bike to Work Day.

TC-12.13 Speed Limit Modifications
Using future accommodations provided through AB 43 – Traffic Safety, re-survey speed limits in the City to identify speed limit reduction opportunities that focus on traffic safety for vulnerable roadway users.

The General Plan Update would encourage bicycling by improving bicycle connectivity with a comprehensive community-wide network of on-street and off-street bicycle facilities as defined in the City of Pleasant Hill adopted 2023 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Implementation of the General Plan Update would not interfere with existing bicycle facilities or conflict with planned bicycle facilities or adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Furthermore, implementation of the General Plan Update would create new bicycle facilities consistent with the City of Pleasant Hill 2023 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which would have a beneficial effect on bicycle circulation and access.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
32 Impact 1d: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not conflict with an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the pedestrian system. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would create a significant impact related to the pedestrian system if the General Plan Update:

1. Disrupts existing pedestrian facilities; or

2. Interferes with planned pedestrian facilities; or

3. Conflicts with applicable pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Growth in residential and non-residential uses under the General Plan Update could result in more use and demand on existing pedestrian facilities. The General Plan Update includes complete streets policies, new pedestrian facilities, and transportation and circulation goals and policies to accommodate increased pedestrian demands generated by the development envisioned in the General Plan Update. The General Plan Update would encourage walking by improving pedestrian facilities and connectivity with a safe and continuous pedestrian network to shorten walking distances and improve pedestrian connections to popular local destinations. Examples of goals and policies in the General Plan Update Transportation and Circulation Element that would encourage walking trips and ensure pedestrian facilities are adequate include the following:

Goal TC-9: Prioritize a safe and connected pedestrian network for users of all ages and abilities.

New Policy]
TC-9.3 Enhance Pedestrian Crossings
Enhance pedestrian crossings on all arterial and collector roadways. [Source: New Policy] TC-9.4 Sidewalk Maintenance
Maintain existing sidewalk to meet ADA requirements, including removal or relocation of objects obstructing pedestrian path and installation of wider or detached sidewalks with a buffer separation from vehicular traffic, where feasible. [Source: New Policy] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
33 TC-9.5 Sidewalk Guidelines and Standards
Establish sidewalk standards and guidelines for enhancing existing sidewalk and installation of new sidewalks. [Source: New Policy]
TC-9.6 Planning for Pedestrian Improvements
Ensure all planning processes, such as PUD Concept Plans, master plans and specific plans, identify areas where pedestrian improvements can be made, such as new connections, increased sidewalk width, improved crosswalks, improved lighting, and new street furniture. [Source: New Policy]
TC-9.7 Enhance Street Lighting
Enhance street lighting to provide for better pedestrian safety. [Source: New Policy] TC-9.8 Sidewalk Improvements
Improve sidewalks to facilitate access by users of all ages and abilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 9A]
TC-9.9 Sidewalk Gap Closure Plan
Create a sidewalk gap closure plan that identifies high-priority sidewalk throughout the city and establishes an implementation plan for eliminating the gaps. [Source: New Policy] Goal TC-10: Provide well-designed and well-maintained off-street paths and trails.

TC-10.1 Prioritize Linkages
Design and maintain a pedestrian system that provides connections between trails and access to roadways and parking. [Source: New Policy]
TC-10.2 Safe and Interconnected Trails
Work with other responsible/owner agencies to ensure the trails system is designed to be safe and interconnected, incorporating on-street connections where needed, designed for pedestrians and/or bicyclists, and consistent with other relevant plans. [Source:

New Policy]
TC-10.3 Safe Trail Crossings
Provide safe trail crossings at surface streets for all non-motorized users. This requires the installation of signs, striping, pavement markings, and actuated traffic control devices, where applicable. [Source: New Policy]
TC-10.4 New Trails
Coordinate with East Bay Municipal Utility District and other agencies to explore new trail opportunities to provide connections to parts of the city without off-road bicycle and pedestrian connections. [Source: New Policy]
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
34 See also Goal TC-11; Policies TC-11.1, 11.2 and 11.3; Goal TC-12; and Policies TC-12.1, 12, 2, 12.3, 12.4,

12.5, 12.7, and 12.9, listed under Impact 1c above.

Implementation of the General Plan Update would not interfere with existing pedestrian facilities or conflict with planned pedestrian facilities or adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Furthermore, implementation of the General Plan Update would create new pedestrian facilities and have a beneficial effect on pedestrian circulation and access consistent with the City of Pleasant Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Criterion 2: Would the plan conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Impact 2: Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would generate home-based VMT per resident that is less than 85% of the Countywide average home-based VMT per resident, but would generate home-work VMT per employee that is higher than 85% of the Countywide home-work VMT per employee. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation) Significance threshold 2 pertains to VMT. For the purposes of this evaluation, this impact would be significant if the implementation of the Project would result in citywide home-based VMT per resident that is higher than 85% of the countywide average home-based VMT per resident; or if the Project would result in citywide home-work VMT per employee that is higher than 85% of the countywide average home-work VMT per employee In addition, the impact would be significant if the 2040 countywide boundary VMT per service population increases with the Project.

See Section 2.1.3 for a description of the VMT impact analysis methodology.

2.1.4.1 Screening Analysis
The potential to screen the Project from a full VMT analysis was considered, as described below. The five key screening criteria are addressed. For the reasons given, it was determined that a full VMT analysis should be conducted for the Project.

1. CEQA Exemption. The project is not otherwise exempt from CEQA, so this criterion does not apply.

2. Small Projects. While it is possible that certain housing developments built under the HEU would be 20 or fewer units, this screening test would need to be applied as a part of individual project review, and does not apply to the HEU program as a whole.

3. Local-Serving Uses. This screening criteria is intended to apply to commercial uses, and is not relevant to residential project types.

4. Projects Located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). The half-mile surrounding the Pleasant Hill BART Station qualifies as a TPA. Individual development projects constructed in the future that are Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
35 located within this area may screen out from a full VMT impact analysis. However, such screening assessment is not appropriate within the Draft Pleasant Hill General Plan Update CEQA analysis.

Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the evaluation of the Project.

5. Projects Located in Low VMT Areas. Screening based on location within a low-VMT area would be based on the VMT maps prepared by CCTA at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level, using the Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model results. Certain TAZs may meet the criteria of low-VMT generating characteristics, and development projects within these TAZs could be presumed to have a less than significant impact with respect to VMT. Such a screening assessment is not appropriate within the Draft Pleasant Hill General Plan Update CEQA analysis.

Therefore, this screening criteria does not apply to the evaluation of the Project.

2.1.4.2 VMT Analysis

2.1.4.2.1 Modelling Procedure
The Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model (CCTA Model) was used to generate VMT estimates for the Project. The CCTA Model allows analysts to forecast regional travel behavior as a function of local land use development decisions, transportation network infrastructure planning, and land use and network policies. The CCTA Model reflects data included in Plan Bay Area 2040, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) that was recently replaced with adoption of Plan Bay Area 2050 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). CCTA has prepared a memorandum documenting the CCTA Model’s consistency with Plan Bay Area 2040, and the model is currently the best available tool for analysis of VMT impacts.

Residential projects are evaluated based on the home-based VMT per resident VMT metric. Home-based VMT is defined as all home-based automobile vehicle trips traced back to the residence of the trip-maker.

Non-home-based trips are excluded. This VMT includes the entire length of the trip. This home-based VMT is then divided by the number of residents to calculate home-based VMT per resident.

Non-residential uses are evaluated based on the home-work VMT per employee metric. Home-work VMT is defined as the employee commute trip to and from work, and excludes mid-day trips, vendor and delivery trips, and visitor trips to the work site.

The VMT calculations are done in the CCTA Model via the production and attraction trip matrices to be able to attribute automobile vehicle trips to the residence of the trip-maker or the work site of the trip maker, respectively. The calculations include the entire trip length, including the portion that leaves the travel model area (the nine-county Bay Area). VMT for trips that leave the travel model area is adjusted to account for the part of the trip that occurs outside of the travel model area.

2.1.4.2.2 Land Use and Analysis Scenarios
Table 1 shows the citywide build-out land uses under the Existing General Plan and the Draft General Plan Update. The baseline (2022) city of Pleasant Hill land uses in the CCTA Model are also shown for reference. A detailed table showing more land use detail is included in Appendix 2. The build-out Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
36 projections were prepared by the 2040 General Plan preparer, Mintier Harnish, and represent full development of all parcels at the densities allowed under each scenario. As such, they likely represent a longer-range development scenario than is expected to occur between the baseline year (2022) and the forecast year (2040). However, the direction from City staff was to use the full build-out land use values for the 2040 VMT impact assessment. It is noted that the remainder of the 2040 CCTA Model represents 2040 land use growth consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments forecasts.

Table 1: City of Pleasant Hill Land Use Summary
Scenario Total Housing Units Total Employees
CCTA 2022 Baseline Model 15,511 16,883
Existing General Plan Build-Out 30,755 39,282
Draft General Plan Update Build-Out 35,341 40,176
Growth: Existing General Plan Build-Out –
CCTA Model 2022 15,244 22,399
Growth: Draft General Plan Update BuildOut – CCTA Model 2022 19,830 23,293 Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model (2022 data); Mintier Harnish (Build-out data); August 2022.

2.1.4.3 VMT Results

2.1.4.3.1 2040 General Plan Analysis
The Contra Costa Countywide Travel Demand Model was adjusted to reflect the relevant land use growth for the 2040 No Project and 2040 With Project cases, as described above. Table 2 presents the VMT results for the home-based VMT per resident, and Table 3 presents the results for the home-work VMT per employee.

Table 2: Citywide Home-Based VMT Summary
Scenario Home-Based
VMT Residents
Home-Based
VMT Per
Resident
County Average HomeBased VMT per Resident
2022 Baseline 441,405 34,193 12.9 17.2
Threshold1--- --- --- 14.6
2040 With Existing General Plan BuildOut 646,563 58,629 11.0 15.9 2040 With General Plan Update BuildOut 739,984 70,397 10.5 15.9 Does Project meet Threshold? --- --- Yes ---

1. 85% of 2022 Baseline Countywide Average
Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, October 2022.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
37 Table 3: Citywide Home-Work VMT Summary
Scenario Home-Work
VMT Employees
Home-Work
VMT per
Employee
County Average
Home-Work
VMT per
Employee
2022 Baseline 324,168 22,742 14.3 15.0
Threshold1--- --- --- 12.7
2040 With Existing General Plan Build-Out 506,612 36,127 14.0 15.1 2040 With General Plan Update Build-Out 519,951 37,069 14.0 15.0 Does Project meet Threshold? --- --- No ---

1. 85% of 2022 Baseline Countywide Average
Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, October 2022.

The analysis indicates that:
• The City of Pleasant Hill VMT per resident of 12.9 miles-per-resident is substantially lower than the Countywide average VMT per resident of 17.2 miles-per-resident in the 2022 baseline and is projected to be substantially lower than the Countywide average VMT per resident in 2040 for both the Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Build-Outs. • The City of Pleasant Hill Home-Work VMT per employee of 14.3 miles-per-resident is slightly lower than the Countywide average Home-Work VMT per employee of 15.0 miles-per-resident in the 2022 baseline and is projected to be slightly lower than the Countywide average VMT per resident in 2040 for both the Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Build-Outs. • Home-Based VMT rates in the County as a whole, and in the City of Pleasant Hill, are projected to decline between 2022 and 2040. Home-Work VMT rates in the County and in the city of Pleasant Hill are projected to stay relatively similar between 2022 and 2040. • The Home-Based VMT rates in the City of Pleasant Hill are projected to be less than 85% of the baseline Countywide average for both the Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Build-Outs. Thus the General Plan Update would have a less than significant impact on Home-based VMT per resident.
• The Home-Work VMT rates in the City of Pleasant Hill are projected to be higher than 85% of the baseline Countywide average for both the Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Update Build-Outs. Thus the General Plan Update would have a significant impact on Homebased VMT per resident. • The Proposed General Plan Update Build-Out projects lower Home-Based VMT rates than the Existing Plan Build-Out, but the two scenarios have similar Home-Work VMT rate projections.

Because the VMT metrics above address conditions in the year 2040, with other countywide development included in the assessments, the impact with respect to home-work VMT is considered significant for both Project and Cumulative conditions. Refer to section 2.1.4.3.2 for the mitigation measure for this impact.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
38 2.1.4.3.2 Cumulative Analysis
The year 2040 total countywide VMT per service population (all residents and employees) is shown in Table 4. These metrics reflect VMT generated by all trips by all land uses in the County, as well as nonCounty generated trips traveling on County roadways (i.e., all VMT within the Contra Costa County boundary). As shown in the table, countywide boundary VMT per service population would decrease with the Project, reflecting the travel efficiency that generally results from more dense, mixed-use development provided with the Project. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to total countywide VMT per service population would be less than significant.

As noted above in section 2.1.4.3.1, the impact with respect to home-work VMT is considered significant under cumulative conditions.

Table 4: Countywide VMT Summary
Metrics 2022 No Project 2040 with Existing
General Plan
2040 with Proposed
General Plan Update
Total 25,881,707 29,624,735 29,610,708
County Service Population 1,585,472 1,915,682 1,928,393 VMT/Service Population 16.324 15.464 15.355
Does VMT per service population
decrease with Project? --- --- Yes
Source: CCTA Travel Demand Model; Fehr & Peers, October 2022.

Mitigation Measure: The CCTA’s Growth Management Program Implementation Guide (Revised February 17, 2021), Appendix F (CCTA Recommended Methodology) describes options for mitigation of VMT impacts. The first two options below apply to development project and plans, and the third applies at a Citywide scale.

1. The project applicant shall modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site, or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes. The effectiveness of such changes should be modeled using the analysis techniques described in Part 3, above.

2. The project applicant shall implement transportation demand management (TDM) or physical design measures to reduce VMT generated by the project prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. A description of such options is included below, .

3. The City shall participate in a CCTA-approved VMT impact fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program, when it is completed and published by CCTA. (Note that CCTA is developing such a program for Contra Costa County.)
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
39 The City shall require preparation and implementation of project-level TDM Plans with the following TDM measures for future land use development projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan that do not meet CCTA screening criteria and thresholds.

Table 5: VMT Reduction Mitigation Measures
CAPCOA Handbook Measure Types of Projects Core Elements T-7: Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Employment-based
*Thoughtful marketing strategy
*Readily available commute information
*Designated TDM Coordinator
*Guaranteed Ride Home
T-8: Provide Ridesharing Program Employment-based
*Participation in a TMA with ride-matching program
*Preferential parking policies for carpools
*Promotions and incentives such as gas cards at
carpool formation
T-9: Implement Subsidized or Discounted
Transit Program
Residential, School,
Employment-based
*Location within 1/2 mile of major transit stop or
high quality transit corridor
*Participation in Commuter Benefits Program
*Easy to sign up for incentives
T-11: Provide Employer Sponsored
Vanpool / Point-to-Point Shuttles Employment-based
*Coordinate logistics of vanpool program
*Cover vanpool fares for riders through commute
benefits program
*Promote and facilitate vanpool creation
T-12: Price Workplace Parking Employment-based
*Location within 1/2 mile of transit service
*Priced at least $5 per day
*On-street parking nearby is not readily available
T-13: Implement Employee Parking
Cashout Employment-based
*Parking is provided as benefit
*On-street parking nearby is not readily available
*Participants pledge to not drive to work
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs Residential
*On-street parking nearby is not readily available
*All parking is priced at a rate at least $30
per month
T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning Residential, Retail, School
*Proactive outreach to all households in service
area or project
*Program Coordinator designated as lead in
promoting non-auto transportation
T-10: Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle
Facilities All Projects
*Provision of secure bicycle parking in the form of
lockers, a locked storage room, or an attended
storage facility
*(For non-residential): Provision of lockers, showers,
and changing rooms
T-21A: Implement Carshare Program /
Provide Carshare Parking All Projects *Dedicate parking for carshare vehicles*Identify carshare partner T-15: Reduce Parking Supply Residential *On-street parking nearby is not readily available T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network
Improvements: All Projects Completion of one or more projects identified in the Solano County Active Transportation Plan Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
40 CAPCOA Handbook Measure Types of Projects Core Elements T-19-A and T-19-B: Construct or Improve
Bicycle Facility/Bicycle Boulevard All Projects
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network All Projects
T-26: Increase Transit Frequency All Projects in PDAs Increase the frequency of transit service by providing funding for more operators and vehicles
T-25: Increase Transit Coverage All Projects Expand transit service to areas without access to it, or expand to later/earlier hours.

T-23: Community-Based Travel Planning Residential, Retail, School
*Proactive outreach to all households in service
area or project
*Program Coordinator designated as lead in
promoting non-auto transportation
T-22: Bikeshare/Scootershare All Projects in PDAs
Fund and implement program providing e-bikes or
scooters available on demand. Ideally pursue a
"dockless" system.

Free E-Bike Program All Projects Provide e-bikes free of charge to households pledging to reduce vehicle trips
Source: Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Change Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA, December 2021).

Because the effectiveness of the above measures in reducing the VMT impacts of new development under the General Plan Update to a less than significant level cannot be determined in this analysis, this impact remains significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

Criterion 3: Would the plan substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Impact 3: The 2040 General Plan is a program-level plan that does not directly address projectlevel design features. Roadway improvements and site access measures would be designed and reviewed in accordance with City standards. (Less Than Significant Impact.) The General Plan Update is a program-level document that does not directly address project-level design features or building specifications. Pleasant Hill maintains improvement standards that guide the construction of new transportation facilities to minimize design hazards for all users of the system.

Through the environmental review process, land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards are evaluated. If needed, mitigation measures are identified therein, and the project is conditioned to construct or provide funding for an improvement that would minimize or eliminate the hazard. Typical improvements Include shoulder widening, adding turn pockets, adding sidewalks or crosswalks, realigning sharp curves, prohibiting certain turning movements, signalizing intersections, and increasing sight distance, among other measures. New and upgraded roadways needed to accommodate new development would be designed according to applicable Federal, State, and local Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
41 design standards. Development and infrastructure projects in Pleasant Hill would be required to comply with the General Plan Update, Pleasant Hill Municipal Code, and applicable State and local regulations. As a result, and in consideration of the proposed General Plan Update’s policies regarding infrastructure safety, listed below, this impact would be less than significant. The General Plan Update establishes the following goals and policies that are intended to result in roadway designs that safely accommodate all users:

Goal TC-1: Establish and maintain a safe and efficient circulation system that emphasizes the use of existing arterial and collector roadways, paths, and bike lanes.

TC-2.1 Traffic Plan Requirement
Require new development to establish comprehensive construction traffic plans, for approval by City staff, which denote haul routes, detours, and other factors that may impact public safety. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 1.5] TC-2.6 Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
Establish a Safe Routes to School program in collaboration with the school districts and private schools that identifies and promotes suggested routes to school and incentivizes students and parents to use alternative transportation modes for school commutes. [New Policy]
Goal TC-3: Encourage slower vehicle speeds and discourage cut-through traffic along City roadways, especially within residential neighborhoods and along freeway bypass routes.

TC-3.1 Residential Streets
Prioritize traffic calming improvements and enforcement efforts along residential roadways that have recurring cut-through traffic or excessive speeding. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 4A, edited.]
TC-3.2 Arterial and Collector Streets
Minimize opportunities for regionally generated cut-through vehicle travel in the city as part of new roadway projects or projects within public roadways. [Source: New Policy] TC-3.3 Vehicle Traffic Calming Devices
Consider traffic calming devices such as lane narrowing, widening medians, neighborhood traffic circles, roundabouts, and landscaping to discourage cut-through vehicle traffic. [Source: New Policy]
Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
42 TC-3.4 Alternative Methods to Prevent Cut-Through Vehicle Traffic Consider the use of alternative street surfacing materials, traffic diverters, special designs, and stop signs to prevent cut-through traffic on residential streets. [Source: New Policy] TC-3.5 Monument Triangle Congestion
Support the reconfiguration of the Monument Triangle circulation network and to improve vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety while reducing congestion anticipated from future development. [Source: New Policy]
TC-3.6 School Area Congestion
Work with the Mount Diablo Unified School District, private schools, and Diablo Valley College to address traffic speeds and congestion near schools and on key access routes. [Source: New Policy]
Goal TC-5: Support a vibrant, walkable environment that encourages alternative (non-driving) modes of transportation.

TC-5.1 Evaluate Multi-modal Facility Needs
Evaluate the needs of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and/or access for new development as part of the review process, and require new development to incorporate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access where feasible and appropriate, consistent with the Circulation Element and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (when adopted). [Source:

Existing General Plan, Growth Management Program 3.3]
TC-5.3. Mobility Technology Support
Identify and implement technology that supports walking, biking, commuting, and other alternative transportation modes within the City including infrastructure that supports micro mobility use within the City. [New Policy]
Goal TC-8: Encourage the development of a comprehensive and integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design features that allow safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families.

TC-8.1 Complete Streets Principles
Apply complete streets principles when building new, or rehabilitating existing, roadways, consider the following design elements:
♦ Sidewalks and curbs as a standard design principle.
♦ Bicycle lanes and/or shared lanes as a standard design principle. ♦ Transit accessibility as a standard design principle. ♦ Shade trees and planting strips as a standard design principle along roadways. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 2.3, modified] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
43 TC-8.2 Review for Complete Streets
Review street reconstruction, new development, and utility projects to incorporate complete street elements when feasible, including trails, bus stop enhancements, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program

2.4, modified]
TC-8.3 Regional Complete Streets Planning
Coordinate internally and with other agencies to plan for the provision of complete streets regionally. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 2.7] TC-8.4 Multi-Modal Roadways
Consider the needs of vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians on all city roadways and facilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Growth Management Policy 3A] TC-8.5 Reduce Vehicle Speeds
Support the reduction of vehicle speeds using engineering and design techniques, community education, and evaluation and planning strategies rather than relying solely on enforcement. [Source: New Policy]
TC-8.6 Wide Sidewalks for Shared Use
Provide wide sidewalks to allow shared use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and non-motorized modes of transportation as directed by the City Engineer. [Source: New Policy] TC-8.7 Limit Roadway Widening
Limit roadway widening and prioritize bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements within the right of way to increase roadway capacity that does not conflict with emergency access requirements. [Source: New Policy]
TC-8.11 Traffic Safety Corridors
Identify Traffic Safety Corridors along Suggested Routes to School and protected residential neighborhoods as allowed through California Assembly Bill 43 – Traffic Safety to establish lower speed streets to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. [Source: New Policy]
Goal TC-9: Prioritize a safe and connected pedestrian network for users of all ages and abilities.

TC-9.1 Pedestrian Safety
Maintain and upgrade the City’s pedestrian system by installing or upgrading sidewalks, warning devices, crosswalks, and other pedestrian aids where appropriate, including particular consideration for the needs of users of all ages and abilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 8A, modified]
TC-9.3 Enhance Pedestrian Crossings
Enhance pedestrian crossings on all arterial and collector roadways. [Source: New Policy] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
44 TC-9.4 Sidewalk Maintenance
Maintain existing sidewalk to meet ADA requirements, including removal or relocation of objects obstructing pedestrian path and installation of wider or detached sidewalks with a buffer separation from vehicular traffic, where feasible. [Source: New Policy] TC-9.5 Sidewalk Guidelines and Standards
Establish sidewalk standards and guidelines for enhancing existing sidewalk and installation of new sidewalks. [Source: New Policy]
TC-9.6 Planning for Pedestrian Improvements
Ensure all planning processes, such as PUD Concept Plans, master plans and specific plans, identify areas where pedestrian improvements can be made, such as new connections, increased sidewalk width, improved crosswalks, improved lighting, and new street furniture. [Source: New Policy]
TC-9.7 Enhance Street Lighting
Enhance street lighting to provide for better pedestrian safety. [Source: New Policy] Goal TC-10: Provide well-designed and well-maintained off-street paths and trails.

TC-10.2 Safe and Interconnected Trails
Work with other responsible/owner agencies to ensure the trails system is designed to be safe and interconnected, incorporating on-street connections where needed, designed for pedestrians and/or bicyclists, and consistent with other relevant plans. [Source: New Policy]
TC-10.3 Safe Trail Crossings
Provide safe trail crossings at surface streets for all non-motorized users. This requires the installation of signs, striping, pavement markings, and actuated traffic control devices, where applicable. [Source: New Policy]
Goal TC-11: Increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips by users of all ages and abilities.

TC-11.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Support a network of safe and comfortable bikeway and pedestrian facilities connecting neighborhoods and destinations in Pleasant Hill and adjacent jurisdictions. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 1.1, modified] TC-11.2 Street Design
Require street cross-sections to accommodate bicyclists, micro-mobility users, and pedestrians. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 1.2, modified] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
45 TC-11.3 Protected Bicycle Facilities
Consider incorporating protected bicycle and pedestrian facilities in higher density land use areas and along major transportation corridors to the greatest extent feasible. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 5.1, modified] Goal TC-12: Strive to eliminate all fatal and serious injury bicycle and pedestrian related crashes.

TC-12.1 Collision Database
Create a traffic count data and collision database and work with applicable City departments and law enforcement to map collision data for identifying problem areas. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 2.1] TC-12.2 Design Standards
Support design upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian facilities to increase connectivity and safety citywide. [Source: New Policy]
TC-12.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Education
Support bicycle and pedestrian safety education in all Pleasant Hill schools. Continue to support Safe Routes to Schools programs to address pedestrian and bicycle safety. [Source: 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Policy 2.3] TC-12.4 Safe Routes to School (SR2S)
Support Safe Routes to School infrastructure and education & encouragement programs to address and enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Develop Suggested Route to School maps for Pleasant Hill schools to help prioritize infrastructure improvements along routes supporting student commutes. [Source: New Policy] TC-12.5 Technology Safety Enhancements
Identify and deploy technology solutions to support bicycle and pedestrian safety through the City including passive detection systems at traffic signals and trail crossings. [Source: New Policy]
TC-12.10 Safe Intersections for Bicycles
Ensure adequate crossing times and detection for bicycle users at signalized intersections. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 7.4] Goal TC-14: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods to support commerce, industry, and the community.

TC-14.1 Minimize Truck Conflicts
Minimize potential conflicts between trucks and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel on streets designated as truck routes. [Source: New Policy] Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
46 TC-14.2 Minimize Truck Loading and Unloading Conflicts Minimize potential conflicts between truck loading and unloading and pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel. [Source: New Policy]
The above goals and policies are intended to result in roadway designs that safely accommodate all users including pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. The General Plan Update does not directly propose any project features or incompatible uses that could increase hazards within the city. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Criterion 4: Would the plan result in inadequate emergency access? Impact 4: The 2040 General Plan U identifies circulation goals and policies that would support emergency access throughout Pleasant Hill. (Less Than Significant Impact.) The 2040 General Plan does not propose specific development or infrastructure projects, therefore does not propose any developments or projects that could result in inadequate emergency access. The purpose of the General Plan Update in terms of transportation is to improve the overall performance of the transportation network for all modes of transportation. The General Plan Update would have a significant impact on emergency access if roadway geometric design features were not designed to City standards and standard engineering practices were not followed, thereby resulting in obstacles to emergency responders. The General Plan update includes the following goals and policies to ensure adequate emergency access to sites throughout Pleasant Hill:

Goal TC-1: Establish and maintain a safe and efficient circulation system that emphasizes the use of existing arterial and collector roadways, paths, and bike lanes.

TC-4.2 Develop Thoroughfares
Develop and improve thoroughfares based on existing and proposed land use patterns and projected demand. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Policy 5B] TC-4.5 Correlation Between Land Use and Transportation
Support land use patterns that make more efficient use of the transportation system, such as locating development near transit routes and high quality bicycle/pedestrian facilities, minimizing new driveways, consolidating parking, and other best practice urban design measures. [Source: Existing General Plan, Growth Management Goal 1, Edited] Goal TC-8: Encourage the development of a comprehensive and integrated transportation network with infrastructure and design features that allow safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, youth, and families.

TC-8.4 Multi-Modal Roadways
Consider the needs of vehicles, bicycle, and pedestrians on all city roadways and facilities. [Source: Existing General Plan, Circulation Program 2.4, modified] Goal HS-3: Minimize the threat to people, property, and the environment from fire hazards. [Source: Existing General Plan, Safety and Noise Goal 4, modified] Policy HS-3.11 Evacuation Routes. The City shall collaborate with Contra Costa County and neighboring cities as a part of the next Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update to identify evacuation routes in the event of wildfires or other natural disasters in compliance with AB 747 and SB 99. [Source: New Policy] Program H Contra Costa County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City shall actively participate in the next update of the Contra Costa Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan that, among other outcomes, will identify evacuation routes in the City in compliance with AB 747 and SB 99. (Source: New Program) Implementation of California Fire Code emergency vehicle access requirements and the aforementioned 2040 General Plan policies would ensure that there would be adequate emergency vehicle access throughout Pleasant Hill. Therefore, 2040 General Plan operational impacts related to emergency vehicle access adequacy would be less than significant.

The above goals are intended to result in roadway designs that safely accommodate all users, including emergency vehicles. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: None required.

Pleasant Hill 2040 General Plan
Transportation Impact Analysis
January 2023
48 3. References
California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in California. December 2018. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.

December 2021.
https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). 2021. Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program Implementation Guide. Available online: https://ccta.net/wpcontent/uploads/2021/08/GMP_Implementation_Guide_FINAL_ 02172021.pdf.

Pleasant Hill, City of. 2020. City of Pleasant Hill Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan (September 2020 Draft).

Appendix 1:

VMT Analysis Flowchart
Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program 104 Revised February 17, 2021
Appendix 2:

Detailed Land Uses for Transportation
Analysis Scenarios
GPAC Preferred Land Use (2022) Max Buildout
Dwelling Units Non‐Residential Square Footage Population Employment Designation Acres Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTALResidential Single‐Family Low Density 890.13 2,536 133                        ‐ 2,669                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 6,340 332                        ‐ 6,672                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Single‐Family Medium Density 1,128.06 4,568 507                        ‐ 5,075                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 11,420 1,267                      ‐ 12,687                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Single‐Family High Density 898.68 5,270 930                        ‐ 6,200                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 13,175 2,325                      ‐ 15,500                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Mangini‐Delu Residential 25.90 168 168                           ‐ 336                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 420 420                           ‐ 840                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Very Low Density 80.71 672 288                           ‐ 960                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 1,680 720                        ‐ 2,400                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Low Density 308.05 3,678 2,452                        ‐ 6,130                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 9,195 6,130                      ‐ 15,325                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Medium Density 58.79                        ‐ 1,763                        ‐ 1,763                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐ 4,407                        ‐ 4,407                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family High Density 59.30                        ‐ 4,151                        ‐ 4,151                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐ 10,377                      ‐ 10,377                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Commercial and Mixed‐Use                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Commercial and Retail 137.26                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 1,674,130                    ‐ 478,320                            ‐                            ‐ 239,160                  ‐ 2,391,610                            ‐                            ‐ 5,231                        ‐ 1,427                            ‐                            ‐ 434 7,092 Mixed Use 144.58                      ‐ 4,337 4,337 708,520                    ‐ 472,340                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                  ‐ 1,180,860 10,842 10,842 2,214                        ‐ 1,409                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 3,623Mixed Use Neighborhood 22.41 22 44 66 366,000                    ‐ 256,200                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 622,200 55 110 165 1,143                           ‐ 764                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 1,907Mixed Use High Density 28.10                        ‐ 1,475 1,475 137,680                      ‐ 91,780                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                      ‐ 229,460 3,687 3,687 430                           ‐ 273                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 703Mixed Use Very High Density 26.90                        ‐ 2,017 2,017 149,370                      ‐ 99,580                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                      ‐ 248,950 5,042 5,042 466                           ‐ 297                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 763Cleaveland Multifamily Very High Density 2.33                          ‐ 162 162 12,940                        ‐ 8,630                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                        ‐ 21,570 405 405 40                             ‐ 25                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 65 Employment                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Office 69.10                        ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 240,810                    ‐ 963,260                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                  ‐ 1,204,070                            ‐                            ‐ 752                        ‐ 2,875                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 3,627 Neighborhood Business 7.80                          ‐                            ‐                            ‐                     ‐ 118,970                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                      ‐ 118,970                            ‐                            ‐                           ‐ 371                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 371Semi‐Public and Institutional 103.15                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                ‐ 1,797,200                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                  ‐ 1,797,200                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                        ‐ 5,364                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 5,364Light Industrial 126.3                      ‐ 4                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                    ‐ 181,600 1,634,440                  ‐ 1,816,040                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 2,971 2,971School 230.47                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 7,529,600                  ‐ 7,529,600                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 13,690 13,690 Other                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Park 156.22                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Open Space 296.38                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Misc 0.21                          ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ SOI ‐ NO GPLU 11.62                        ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Total 4,812.48 16,914 18,427 35,341 3,408,420                ‐ 4,167,310                    ‐ 181,600 9,403,200 17,160,530 42,285 46,064 88,349 10,647                      ‐ 12,434                            ‐                            ‐ 17,095 40,176 Existing General Plan Land Use Max Buildout
Dwelling Units Non‐Residential Square Footage Population Employment Designation Acres Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTALResidential Single‐Family Low Density 890.13 2,536 133                        ‐ 2,669                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 6,340 332                        ‐ 6,672                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Single‐Family Medium Density 1,153.36 4,671 519                        ‐ 5,190                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 11,677 1,297                      ‐ 12,974                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Single‐Family High Density 964.59 5,657 998                        ‐ 6,655                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 14,142 2,495                      ‐ 16,637                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Very Low Density 80.71 672 288                           ‐ 960                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 1,680 720                        ‐ 2,400                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Low Density 303.78 3,627 2,418                        ‐ 6,045                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 9,067 6,045                      ‐ 15,112                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family Medium Density 58.79                        ‐ 1,763                        ‐ 1,763                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐ 4,407                        ‐ 4,407                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Multi‐Family High Density 59.30                        ‐ 4,151                        ‐ 4,151                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐ 10,377                      ‐ 10,377                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Commercial and Mixed‐Use
Commercial and Retail 157.03                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 1,915,250                    ‐ 547,210                            ‐                            ‐ 273,600                  ‐ 2,736,060                            ‐                            ‐ 5,985                        ‐ 1,633                            ‐                            ‐ 497 8,115 Mixed Use 107.1                      ‐ 4 3,214 3,214 525,060                    ‐ 350,040                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                      ‐ 875,100 8,035 8,035 1,640                        ‐ 1,044                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 2,684Mixed Use Neighborhood                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Mixed Use High Density                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Mixed Use Very High Density                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Cleaveland Multifamily Very High Density                          ‐ 2.33 108 108 8,600                        ‐ 5,490                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                        ‐ 14,090 270 270 26                             ‐ 16                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 42 Employment
Office 89.99                        ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 313,600                ‐ 1,254,400                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                  ‐ 1,568,000                            ‐                            ‐ 980                        ‐ 3,744                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 4,724 Neighborhood Business 18.62                        ‐                            ‐                            ‐                     ‐ 283,890                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                      ‐ 283,890                            ‐                            ‐                           ‐ 887                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 887Semi‐Public and Institutional 106.07                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                ‐ 1,848,130                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                  ‐ 1,848,130                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                        ‐ 5,516                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 5,516Light Industrial 126.3                      ‐ 4                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                    ‐ 181,600 1,634,440                  ‐ 1,816,040                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 2,971 2,971School 241.47                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 7,888,750                  ‐ 7,888,750                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ 14,343 14,343 Other
Park 156.32                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Open Space 287.03                      ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Misc 0.21                          ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                              ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ SOI ‐ NO GPLU 11.62                        ‐                            ‐                            ‐                             ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐                            ‐ Total 4,814.81 17,163 13,592 30,755 3,046,400                ‐ 4,005,270                    ‐ 181,600 9,796,790 17,030,060 42,906 33,978 76,884 9,518                      ‐ 11,953                            ‐                            ‐ 17,811 39,282 Citywide Summary Comparison
Dwelling Units Non‐Residential Square Footage Population Employment Acres Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL Single Family Multifamily TOTAL Retail Service Agriculture Manufacturing Wholesale Other TOTAL GPAC Preferred Alternative Max Buildout 4,812.48 16,914 18,427 35,341 3,408,420                ‐ 4,167,310                    ‐ 181,600 9,403,200 17,160,530 42,285 46,064 88,349 10,647                      ‐ 12,434                            ‐                            ‐ 17,095 40,176 Existing General Plan Max Buildout 4,814.81 17,163 13,592 30,755 3,046,400                ‐ 4,005,270                    ‐ 181,600 9,796,790 17,030,060 42,906 33,978 76,884 9,518                      ‐ 11,953                            ‐                            ‐ 17,811 39,282 Difference ‐ (249) 4,835 4,586 362,020                    ‐ 162,040                           ‐                           ‐ (393,590) 130,470 (621) 12,086 11,465 1,129                           ‐ 481                           ‐                           ‐ (716) 894 Difference as Percent ‐ ‐1.5% 35.6% 14.9% 11.9% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐4.0% 0.8% ‐1.4% 35.6% 14.9% 11.9% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐4.0% 2.3%

Pleasant Hill City CouncilMay 18, 2023

Pleasant Hill City Council
May 18, 2023