Pleasanton City Council
January 9, 2025

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

24 shown in Table 3 and Table 4), the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds for criteria air pollutants with mitigation incorporated and thus would not conflict with the 2017 CAP’s goal to attain air quality standards. Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of such control measures. Therefore, project impacts related to consistency with the 2017 CAP would be less than significant.

Table 5 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Measures of 2017 CAP Control Measure Evaluation
TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities.

Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, fund bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle parking facilities.

Consistent. The project would include bicycle parking spaces consistent with the latest Title 24 CALGreen Standards.

EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work with local
governments to adopt additional energy-efficiency
policies and programs. Support local government
energy efficiency program via best practices, model
ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners
to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand
during peak times.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the energy efficiency standards of the latest Title 24 (including the California Energy Code and CALGreen).

The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. In addition, a photovoltaic (PV) solar array on the roof of all residences would be installed pursuant to the California Energy Code.

BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in
school districts; investigate funding strategies to
implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide
building energy code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with ABAG’s
BayREN program to make additional funding available
for energy-related projects in the buildings sector.

Engage with additional partners to target reducing
emissions from specific types of buildings.

Consistent. The proposed project would include a PV system consistent with the latest Title 24 Standards.

The proposed
residences would be all-electric and would have no natural gas or propane plumbing installed. The CALGreen standards are updated every three years and become increasingly more stringent over time. WR2: Support Water Conservation. Develop a list of best practices that reduce water consumption and
increase on-site water recycling in new and existing
buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with water conservation standards of CALGreen that are in effect at that time. The project would incorporate water-efficiency measures, including efficient water fixtures and climate adapted plantings.

Source: BAAQMD 2017
Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to air quality, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. The DSP policies, applicable City COAs, and Mitigation Measures which were required for the original project, would remain applicable.

Conclusion
The DSP found air quality impacts to be significant and unavoidable. However, the Barone project impacts would be less than significant, and no significant new or substantially increased air quality impacts would occur compared to the original project.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 25

5.3 Biological Resources
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR recognizes that although the DSP area is mostly developed, it includes Arroyo del Valle, a westward flowing stream that originates in northeastern Santa Clara County and feeds into Lake Del Valle. The Final EIR identifies habitat of special status species located along Arroyo del Valle, including but not limited to habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Chinook salmon, and western pond turtle. In other parts of the DSP area, special-status species including but not limited to Crotch bumble bee, western bumble bee, and Alameda whipsnake have been recorded. Because the DSP would discourage development along Arroyo del Valle, and DSP Policy LD-P.62 would require projects around Arroyo del Valle to implement measures to minimize potentially negative effects, the Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status species. Similarly, because the DSP included policies to support implementation of the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan, the Final EIR concluded that the DSP would not result in substantial adverse effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, including portions of Arroyo del Valle, as development projects facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with existing regulations such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Pleasanton’s Watercourse Protection Ordinance. Additionally, the DSP includes policies that require developers of projects located along Arroyo del Valley to assess existing conditions and prepare channel/habitat restoration plans and wildlife and habitat monitoring programs. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that implementation of the DSP would not result in substantial adverse effects to resident or migratory wildlife and would not impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

Additionally, the Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, as the DSP would require developers to implement measures to protect existing trees and biological resources. The Final EIR also concluded that the DSP would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Overall, the Final EIR concluded that the DSP would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is immediately south of and adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, and the project would include construction of residences in the northern portion of the project site along Arroyo del Valle.

The project site is within the Wildland Overlay of the City’s General Plan and has a DSP designation of Open Space Arroyo. Residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank, and the project would not include modifications to the bed, channel or banks of Arroyo del Valle.

During construction, the project would involve excavation and grading activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation within Arroyo del Valle. Potential spills from construction equipment could result in contamination of Arroyo del Valle, which would be a potentially substantial adverse effect on special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. However, the project would be required to conform with the policies of the DSP, several of which aim to protect and enhance the condition of Arroyo del Valle. Applicable DSP policies include:

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

26 LD-P.66. Conservation of the Arroyo del Valle. Require developers of future projects involving land within and adjacent to the Arroyo del Valle to implement the following measures to minimize potentially negative impacts to the Arroyo:
 Coordinate with the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies and secure all required construction and grading permits.
 Conduct an assessment of existing conditions, including topography, waterline location, trees, and other major natural site features.
 Identify the existing plant and wildlife communities and species.  Prepare detailed channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plans for project impact areas that retain or enhance existing channel hydraulic capacity.  Prepare wildlife and habitat monitoring programs to ensure the long-term success of channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plans.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of construction and grading permits, as outlined in the policy above. Although it is not anticipated that the project would require ground disturbance within the riparian corridor of Arroyo del Valle, the project applicant would be required to prepare a channel/habitat restoration and enhancement plan if Arroyo del Valle or its riparian habitat are impacted by construction ground disturbance or stormwater discharge.

Additionally, state and federal wetland and waters protections such as Clean Water Act, Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code would also apply, and the appropriate authorizations would be required to be secured prior to construction in coordination with the environmental regulatory agencies. Further, as described further in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would disturb more than one acre of land and the project applicant would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Permit No. CAS612008).

As described therein, compliance with state regulations would avoid and minimize erosion and contamination to the extent feasible by requiring erosion and sediment controls and runoff water quality monitoring.

In operation, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, which would not generate additional stormwater runoff. Additionally, the project would involve irrigation of landscaped areas. Stormwater and irrigation water runoff into Arroyo del Valle could have an adverse effect on special status species, sensitive natural communities, and state and federally protected wetlands/waters. However, stormwater and irrigation water from the project site would be collected and directed to onsite bioretention areas and silva cells, and no water would be directly released into Arroyo del Valle. This project feature is consistent with Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control of the PMC; additionally, the project would be subject to the following DSP policy:

LD-P.67. Best Management Practices. Require developers and business owners to operate projects to minimize impacts to the Arroyo.
 Require the owners of new businesses that locate adjacent to the Arroyo to implement strategies to avoid trash and other waste from entering the Arroyo, including, covering trash cans so that wildlife cannot access them; properly disposing of food waste; and prohibiting dumping.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 27 Compliance with required stormwater controls and implementation of the above DSP policy would minimize stormwater runoff and pollution in Arroyo del Valle. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to special status species, habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands associated with Arroyo del Valle during operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would occur adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, which provides a corridor for movement of native fish and wildlife species, including special status species such as California red- legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, and Chinook salmon. However, the project site is located within an urban setting with existing roads and development; the existing area to be developed adjacent to the creek is a paved parking lot with chain-link fencing; and the new residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with fish and wildlife movement compared with existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would involve removal of 39 trees on the project site, 34 of which are considered “Heritage trees” pursuant to PMC Chapter 17.16. The project applicant would be required to obtain a tree removal permit from the City. In addition, the project applicant would be required to comply with the following City standard COAs associated with tree removal:

Standard Conditions of Approval
 Tree Report. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the tree report prepared by Richard Gessner of March Consulting Arborists dated December 3, 2020. No tree trimming or pruning other than that specified in the tree report shall occur. The applicant shall arrange for the Project Arborist to conduct a field inspection prior to building permit issuance to ensure all recommendations have been properly implemented. The Project Arborist shall certify in writing all recommendations have been followed.
 Tree Removal Mitigation. Any trees approved to be removed by the City shall have its full value paid into the City’s Urban Forestry Fund. A credit for replanting trees shall be as follows:
 $200 credit for a 15-gallon size replacement tree;
 $400 credit for a 24-inch box size replacement tree; and  $800 credit for a 36-inch box size replacement tree.
 Tree Bond. Any tree affected by development/construction must be protected per the Municipal Code. The applicant shall post cash, letter of credit, or other security satisfactory to the Director of Engineering/City Engineer, for all Heritage Trees and any other significant tree as deemed by the City Landscape Architect. This bond or security will be for the value of the tree(s), up to a maximum of $100,000, and shall be held for a minimum of 1 year following acceptance of public improvements of completion of construction, whichever is later, and shall be forfeited if the trees are destroyed or substantially damaged. An arborist shall be onsite during any tree work (i.e. root pruning, trimming, setting up tree protection, etc.). The bond or security may be released early with a certification letter by the arborist confirming he/she was present during said tree work and work was performed in accordance with the arborist’s recommendations.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

28  Tree Protection Fencing. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall install temporary 6-foot tall chain-link fencing (or other fence type acceptable to the Landscape Architecture Division) outside of the existing tree drip lines. The location of the tree protection fencing shall be shown on the demolition plans (if applicable), grading, building, and/or landscape plans. The fencing shall remain in place until final landscape inspection by the Landscape Architecture Division. Removal of such fencing prior to approval may result in a “stop work order.”
 Project Plans. The following statements shall be printed on the demolition, grading and landscape plans where applicable to the satisfaction of the City Landscape Architect prior to issuance of building permits:
 No existing tree may be trimmed or pruned without prior approval by the City Landscape Architect.
 Utilize best efforts to locate any new utility trenches outside of the existing canopy of the trees to be saved. If this is not feasible, the applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist acceptable to the City indicating trenching will not be detrimental to the health of the tree.
 Nothing may be stored within the dripline of the tree canopies. This includes equipment, oil, gas, chemicals, harmful materials, fill or storage.
 No oil, gasoline, chemicals, or other harmful materials shall be deposited or disposed within the dripline of the trees or in drainage channels, swales, or areas that may lead to the dripline.
 No sign, wires, or ropes shall be attached to the trees.  No stockpiling/storage of construction materials, fill, etc., shall take place underneath or within 5-feet of the dripline of the existing trees.
 No equipment or temporary structures shall be placed within or beneath the dripline of the existing trees.

With compliance with PMC Chapter 17.16 and City standard conditions of approval, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to biological resources, and no new mitigation measures are necessary. The DSP policies and applicable City COAs, which were required for the original project, would remain applicable.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to impacts identified in the Final EIR for the DSP, and no significant new or substantially increased biological resources impacts would occur compared to those identified for the DSP.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 29

5.4 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Historical Resources
The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the DSP would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource, as the DSP does not propose redevelopment of historic properties. Although future development and redevelopment facilitated by the DSP could affect historic resources, the DSP includes policies to protect historic buildings from demolition and that modifications to historic buildings closely reflect the existing architectural character of the building. With implementation of existing General Plan policies, state regulations, and DSP policies, the DSP would result in less than significant impacts to historical resources.

Archaeological Resources
The Final EIR states that implementation of the DSP could cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource during grading and excavation for projects facilitated by the DSP. However, existing General Plan policies would minimize or avoid impacts by requiring the protection and preservation of archaeological resources. The Final EIR determined that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce the DSP’s potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Paleontological Resources
The Final EIR states that there are no known fossil localities in the DSP area, but that there is potential for unknown paleontological resources to be discovered during development allowed under the DSP given the presence of fossils in the Livermore-Amador Valley region. The Final EIR concluded that the implementation program HP-I.7 in the DSP would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Human Remains
The Final EIR states that human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading and excavation activities of projects facilitated by the DSP. The discovery of human remains is regulated by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052. Accordingly, the Final EIR concludes that with compliance with these regulations, impacts of the DSP on human remains would be less than significant.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Final EIR identifies that there are no previously recorded tribal cultural resources within or adjacent to the DSP area but acknowledges that there is moderate potential for discovery of tribal cultural resources along Arroyo del Valle and other parts of Pleasanton. As part of preparation of the DSP EIR, the City of Pleasanton sent notification letters to tribes affiliated with the DSP area pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The Final EIR notes that no tribes submitted a request for consultation. The Final EIR states that tribal cultural resources could be encountered during grading and excavation activities for projects facilitated by the DSP; however, the City’s General Plan contains policies that would serve to minimize or avoid impacts as they require protection and preservation of such resources. Additionally, the Final EIR states that future projects

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

30 would be required to comply with the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and incorporate tribal consultation into the CEQA environmental review process. The Final EIR concludes that with existing General Plan policies and state requirements, the impact of the DSP on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Historical Resources
The following analysis incorporates information from the Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared for the project by TreanorHL in February 2021. The HRE is included as Appendix B to this Addendum.

The project site is primarily occupied by a restaurant building, which was originally constructed prior to 1888 and incorporates small, recent additions on every building façade. A single-story, gable-roof building and four small single-story structures are adjacent to the restaurant building and dining area, and these structures were added to the site within the last two decades. The single-family residence within the project site, 493 St. John Street, was also constructed prior to 1888 and has experienced several modifications since its original construction, including window replacement, relocation of the main entrance, siding replacement, and several other small additions. The accessory dwelling unit associated with the house was constructed by 1943. Additionally, three prefabricated single-story accessory structures are associated with the house, all of which were added to the site within the last five years (Appendix B).

Due to their age, the restaurant building and the single-family residence required evaluation for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 1. These criteria pertain to properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history. The HRE determined that the restaurant and the single-family residence are not eligible for listing under other criteria of the NRHP or CRHR, and the other accessory structures on the site are not eligible for listing under any criteria of the NRHP or CRHR (Appendix B).

The HRE evaluated the integrity of the restaurant and the single-family residence to determine if the properties qualified for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A and Criterion 1, respectively.

The HRE determined that although the restaurant building retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the property does not retain integrity of its original form and massing, its original scale, or its original use as a residential structure. Therefore, the HRE concludes the restaurant building does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B).

Similarly, although the single-family residence retains integrity for remaining in its original location, the residence has been substantially altered and does not retain integrity of its original architectural style, design and workmanship. Additionally, the residence does not retain integrity of setting due to surrounding new development. Therefore, the HRE concludes that the single-family residence does not retain sufficient integrity to be significant under Criterion A of the NRHP and Criterion 1 of the CRHR, and the property is not eligible for listing as a historic resource (Appendix B).

The project would involve demolition of the restaurant structure, while the single-family residence would remain on site. Because the restaurant does not qualify as a historic resource, its removal

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 31 would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Additionally, because the single-family residence does not qualify as a historic resource, development adjacent to the residence would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource by altering its setting. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to those discussed in the Final EIR for the DSP as a whole.

Archaeological Resources
The following analysis incorporates information from the Archaeological Resources Assessment (ARA) prepared for the proposed project by Rincon Consultants, Inc., in October 2023. The ARA is included as Appendix C. The ARA included a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, and of the NRHP, CRHR, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Built Environment Resources Directory, and the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility list.

Background and archival research undertaken as part of the ARA included a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, geologic maps, soils maps, and previously conducted archaeological resource evaluation. The complete results of these searches are discussed in Appendix C. The ARA also included a pedestrian survey of the project site. Exposed ground surfaces were examined for artifacts, ecofacts, soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historical debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).

The records search identified 10 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5 mile radius of the project, two of which are the studies of the restaurant building and single-family residence within the project site performed by TreanorHL and documented in the HRE (Appendix B).

No other previously conducted studies overlap with the project site, and none of these surveys identified archaeological resources (Appendix C). The geologic maps review identified that the project site has high sensitivity for buried archaeological resources due to underlying soil types and proximity to Arroyo del Valle. The field survey did not identify archaeological resources (Appendix C).

The ARA did not identify archaeological resources or archaeological deposits in the project site.

However, the lack of surface evidence of archaeological materials does not preclude their subsurface existence. Due to the project site’s geologic setting and its proximity to Arroyo Valle, there is a high potential for buried archaeological deposits to be extant within the project site.

Construction of the project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, which would be significant impact.

Pleasanton’s General Plan includes Program 5.2, which requires new development to “follow the recommendations contained within archaeological and historical architecture studies regarding rehabilitation or preservation of archaeologically or historically significant structures and sites” (City of Pleasanton 2005).The ARA includes recommendations that would involve implementation of a worker environmental awareness program, archaeological monitoring during construction, and archaeological resource recovery protocol if resources are encountered during construction.

Accordingly, the project would involve implementation of the recommendations within the ARA as conditions of approval, and the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource with compliance with General Plan Program 5.2 and the recommendations made in the ARA. Impacts to archaeological resources would not be greater than those anticipated in the Final EIR. The recommended conditions of approval to implement Program

5.2 are as follows:

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

32 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
 Worker Environmental Awareness Program: Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the construction crew should participate in on-site training on the proper procedures to follow if cultural resources are uncovered during excavations, site preparation, or other related activities. This Worker Environmental Awareness Program should include a comprehensive discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law, samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the vicinity of the Project site, a discussion of what such artifacts may look like when partially buried or wholly buried and then freshly exposed, a discussion of what prehistoric and historic-period archaeological deposits look like at the surface and when exposed during construction, and instruction that employees are to halt work in the vicinity of a discovery (within 50 feet). This information should be provided in a kick-off meeting or with an informational brochure that outlines reporting procedures in the event of a discovery, which would be provided to all individuals working on-site.
 Archaeological Monitoring: Archaeological monitoring under the direction of an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be performed during permitted ground disturbing activities.

Activities that would require an archaeological monitor include mass grading and excavation with mechanical equipment. Based on the level of prior development within the project site, Rincon recommends that archaeological monitoring be initiated once ground disturbing activities such as rough grading encounter previously undisturbed soils. Undisturbed soils are expected to be encountered roughly 18 inches below the ground surface in landscaped areas or paved areas. Activities requiring the use of hand tools are not recommended for monitoring.

During monitoring, the monitors will examine the work areas for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., chipped stone tools and production debris, stone milling tools, ceramics), historic- period debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), and/or soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden. Each monitor should maintain a daily log documenting ground disturbing activity, work locations, description, and provenience of any archaeological discoveries (if any), and any necessary action items for monitoring. Archaeological monitoring may be reduced or terminated at the discretion of the archaeologist in consultation with the City, as warranted by conditions such as encountering bedrock, the presence of fill soil, or negative findings during initial ground disturbance. If monitoring is reduced to spot-checking, spot-checking should occur when ground disturbance moves to a new location or when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously excavated (unless those depths are within bedrock).
 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources: In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the resource. If the resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to be prehistoric, then a Native American representative shall also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the resource. If the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative determines it to be appropriate, archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility shall be completed. If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, per the requirements of CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 33 impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. Pursuant to the data recovery plan, the qualified archaeologist and Native American representative, as appropriate, shall recover and document the scientifically consequential information that justifies the resource’s significance.

The City shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate, and the resulting documentation shall be submitted to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System, per CCR Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

Paleontological Resources
Ground-disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Significant impacts to paleontological resources include the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources or associated stratigraphic data.

The Barone’s project site is mapped as Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits by Helley and Graymer (1997). Holocene floodplain deposits consist of gray sandy or silty clay with occasional lenses of silt, sand, or gravel. Test borings conducted for the project’s geotechnical investigation encountered a 7-inch layer of asphalt and artificial fill, clay, and sandy silt from 7 inches to 12 feet, and clayey to gravelly sand from 12 to 48 feet (Geo-Logic Associates 2020). The description of the sediments from 7 inches to 12 feet, which are anticipated to be the only sediments impacted by Barone’s project construction, generally agrees with the description of Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits of Helley and Graymer (1997). Holocene-aged sediments are generally considered too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources, as described in the Society of Vertebrates Paleontology (SVP; 2010) guidelines. Therefore, Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

Holocene-aged geologic units, such as Quaternary (Holocene) floodplain deposits, may be underlain by older (i.e., 5,000 years old or more), higher-sensitivity sediments in the subsurface. The depth at which this transition to 5,000-year-old sediments occurs is unknown. Ground-disturbing construction activities for the Barone’s project will include grading for building pads and excavations for new utilities, sewer lines, and storm water infrastructure, that is expected to require up to 4,200 CY of excavated sediment. Grading for building pads is expected to reach as much as 5 feet below the surface. At this depth, it is unlikely that 5,000-year-old sediments will occur. Excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure will reach as much as 9 feet below the surface. Although it is more likely that older, potentially paleontologically sensitive sediments will be encountered at this greater depth, the overall volume of such sediments would be small. Therefore, the potential impacts to paleontological resources as a result of the Barone’s project are the same as those identified in the Final EIR.

Human Remains
As discussed in the Final EIR, human remains could be disturbed during project grading and excavation activities. The discovery of human remains is regulated by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and 7052. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD must complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and provide recommendations as to the treatment of the remains to the landowner. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

34 Tribal Cultural Resources
Rincon Consultants sent a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search request to the Native American Heritage Commission. On August 27, 2023, the Native American Heritage Commission responded that the results of the search were negative (Appendix C). As described above, the City of Pleasanton did not receive requests for AB 52 consultation during preparation of the Final EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21808.3.1, the lead agency of a project must begin Native American Consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. Because this project is analyzed as an addendum to the DSP Final EIR, AB 52 consultation for this project is not required.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
Historical Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to historical resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no mitigation measures are necessary. The recommendations included in the ARA (Appendix C), listed under Impacts of the Barone’s Project above, would be implemented as part of the project as conditions of approval pursuant to Program 5.2 of the City’s General Plan.

Paleontological Resources
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to paleontological resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Implementation Plan HP-I.7 of the DSP would remain applicable.

Human Remains
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to human remains compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Historical Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased historical resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased archaeological or tribal cultural resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 35 Paleontological Resources
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased paleontological resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Human Remains
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased impacts to human remains would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.5 Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would directly or indirectly generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Final EIR concludes that construction emissions associated with buildout of the DSP would result in less than significant impacts as the air district for the project region, BAAQMD, has not established thresholds for construction-related GHG emissions. However, operation of development facilitated by the DSP would generate GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips, natural gas and electricity use, waste and wastewater generation, and landscaping activities. The DSP would comply with statewide GHG emissions reduction goals and include mitigation to reduce GHG emissions, and the Final DSP EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which aims to reduce GHG emissions associated with new development.

However, development facilitated by the DSP would generate GHG emissions that would exceed the efficiency threshold that would indicate “substantial progress” toward the emissions reduction target of Executive Order S-3-05, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Similarly, although the DSP would not conflict with the City’s Climate Action Plan, DSP would conflict with state plans to reduce GHG emissions because it would result in GHG emissions that exceed the efficiency threshold and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Energy
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during project construction or operation.

Although the DSP would result in a net increase in energy consumption, the DSP includes several policies related to encouraging alternative transit, supporting sustainable land use patterns, and encouraging energy efficiency, and these policies would decrease the demand for energy on a per capita and per service population basis. Impacts would be less than significant. The Final EIR also determined that the DSP would not conflict with the California Building Code (CBC) Energy Efficiency Standards, state vehicle GHG emissions reductions targets, or other applicable energy conservation regulations, and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

36 Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Barone’s project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1. In accordance with Association of Environmental Professional’s (AEP) recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project’s annual GHG emissions (AEP 2016). Operational emissions modeled include mobile source emissions, energy emissions, area emissions, refrigerant emissions, water and waste emissions. The trip generation rates for single family and commercial land uses were based on average trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 10th edition of the Trip Generation Manual (CAPCOA 2022) Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption by appliances as well as for space and water heating. The project would add 3.0kilowatt PV systems for each of the 14 proposed single-family residences. It is assumed 12 kilowatts-hours per day would be generated per 3.0 kilowatt PV systems (Energy Matters 2023). Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. The thresholds of significance used to evaluate the significance of GHG emissions under the proposed project are consistent with the recently adopted City of Pleasanton Climate Action Plan (CAP) emission reduction targets. The CAP set a target of 4.1 MT of CO 2e per capita by 2030. Analysis of the
Barone’s project utilizes this target for evaluating the net change in GHG emissions as compared to existing conditions.

The DSP EIR found GHG emissions would not achieve the 2040 efficiency threshold of 1.7 MT of CO2e and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As shown in Table 6, construction associated with the Barone’s project would generate 969 MT of CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to AEP guidance, construction associated with the project would generate 32 MT of CO2e per year. As shown in Table 7, the Barone’s project would generate a net increase over the existing use of approximately 23 MT of CO2e per year during operation. Total emissions (amortized construction emissions plus annual operation emissions) would be 1.3 MT of CO2e per year per capita (conservatively rounded up to the nearest tenth). These emissions would not exceed the 4.1 MT of CO2e per year per capita goal developed to demonstrate consistency with the latest state- level policies. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant, and would be a reduced impact compared to DSP EIR findings.

Table 6 Construction GHG Emissions
Year Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2025 592
2026 374
2027 3
Total 969
Amortized over 30 years 32
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Notes: Emissions modeling was completed using CalEEMod. See Appendix A for modeling worksheets.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 37 Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction1 32
Operational 23
Mobile 144
Area <1
Energy 11
Water 3
Waste 4
Refrigerant <1
Existing (139)
Net Emissions 55
Emissions Per Capita 44 (41 residents and 6 employees)

1.3 City of Pleasanton CAP Numeric Threshold (MT of CO2e per Capita) 4.1 Exceed Threshold? No
MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Amortized construction related GHG emissions over 30 years Source: See Appendix A for the CalEEMod worksheets
Plan Consistency
Several plans have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in Pleasanton and at the State level, including the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and the City of Pleasanton CAP. Similar to the DSP EIR, the Barone’s project would comply with applicable State and local energy efficiency, renewable energy, green building, water conservation, and solid waste diversion requirements for new construction.

The proposed residences would include all-electric appliances and would include a 3.0 kilowatt solar panel for each of the proposed single family residences. In addition, two electric vehicle parking charging stations would be installed for the commercial buildings. The project would also be located a quarter mile from existing transit and other commercial and residential land uses. The project would be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver certified. Pursuant to PMC Section 20.26.370, Section 5.106.13 added—All-electric buildings the proposed residences would be all-electric and would have no natural gas or propane plumbing installed.

As a result, the Barone’s project would be consistent with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan goal to decarbonize buildings and electrify transportation, as well as consistent with the Pleasanton CAP threshold. In addition, the project would be consistent with Pleasanton’s Primary CAP 2.0 actions, such as BE-1 Advance the Decarbonization of Building, BE-3 Expand Use of Renewable Energy, TLU-1 Advance Vehicle decarbonization, and WR-1 Improve Water Supply & Increase Conservation.

Therefore, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable GHG emissions.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

38 Energy

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the Barone’s project would result in short-term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators.

Temporary grid power may also be needed for construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. Similar to the manufacturers utilizing energy conservation methods to reduce costs, it is reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel consumption during construction to reduce construction costs. The project would comply with the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, which imposes limits on idling and restricts the use of older vehicles. This would reduce fuel consumption and lead to the use of fuel-efficient vehicles on the construction site. Construction equipment would be maintained to applicable standards, and construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use would be temporary and typical for construction sites. The CALGreen Building Standards Code includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of the proposed project to minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and no impact would occur. Impacts would not be greater than those determined in the Final EIR.

O

PERATION
Operational energy use would include use of transportation fuel. California requires that all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, a cleaner formulation of gasoline that results in lower emissions of ozone, CO and other air pollutants when burned. The introduction of mixed commercial and residential land uses, close to one another, further promotes a higher-density mixed-use land use pattern that is intended to reduce vehicle trip lengths and subsequent transportation energy use.

In addition to transportation energy use, operation of the project would consume electricity for building heating and power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. The proposed project would increase the total amount of electricity consumed compared to the existing uses on the project site. In compliance with the PMC, the project would not utilize natural gas for the proposed residential uses. Project energy consumed would represent an incremental increase in energy usage compared to existing energy use in Pleasanton, and the project would implement energy-efficient components to reduce energy demand. Additionally, the project would meet CALGreen specific requirements for energy efficiency in new development and would incorporate Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance features. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and this impact would be less than significant.

Overall, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to energy.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 39 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to greenhouse gas emissions and energy compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant, and would be reduced compared to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR. Impacts related to energy would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR. No significant new or substantially increased greenhouse gas emissions or energy impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.6 Geology and Seismicity
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that although the DSP area does not overlie a known earthquake fault, the DSP area is within a seismically active region and would be subject to strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and lateral spreading. However, development in the DSP area would be subject to several existing state and local regulations that require site-specific geological investigations and design elements to minimize susceptibility to seismic events. Development would be required to comply with Chapter 17.12.050 of PMC, which requires preparation of geotechnical investigation reports to characterize existing geologic hazards and risks. Additionally, several existing General Plan policies would restrict development in hazardous areas, sloped lots, and earthquake fault zones.

Due to the generally flat topography of the DSP area, there is a low probability of landslides.

Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that implementation of the DSP would not expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death associated with earthquake fault zones, strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.

Development within the DSP area would be required to connect to existing wastewater infrastructure and would not utilize alternative wastewater disposal systems or septic tanks. The Final EIR determined that the DSP would have no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The following analysis incorporates information from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project by Geo-Logic Associates in June 2022. The Geotechnical Investigation is included as Appendix D. Section 1803.1.1.3 of the California Building Code (CBC) states that the building department of each locality (in this case the Pleasanton Building Division) must approve the soil investigation if it determines that the recommended action is likely to prevent structural damage in each dwelling. Further, as a condition of the building permit, the approved recommended action must be incorporated in the construction of each dwelling. Therefore, pursuant to the PMC and the CBC, the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) would be incorporated into the design of the project and verified by the City prior to issuance of a building permit.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

40 As determined in the Final EIR for the DSP, the DSP area does not overlie a known earthquake fault or landslide hazards areas; therefore, the proposed project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or landslides. However, as discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area is within a seismically active region, and the proposed project would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Risks associated with ground shaking would be minimized by compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures, which require foundations and other structural support features to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking. Although nothing can ensure that proposed structures do not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering can minimize the risk to life and property. Additionally, as described above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the Geotechnical Investigation. These recommendations would minimize the impacts of ground shaking, including but not limited to recommendations for subgrade preparation, materials for fill, compaction of fill, and foundation construction, and the impacts of localized erosion along Arroyo del Valle (Appendix D).

The Geotechnical Investigation identified that some subsurface soils at the project site are prone to liquefaction during seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Investigation recommends including post-tensioned slab foundations in proposed structures, which would accommodate settlement during liquefaction (Appendix D). Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation includes other recommendations to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, including but not limited to soil moisture content control and selection of fill material. As described above, the project would be required to incorporate recommendations made in the Geotechnical Report, and risks associated with liquefaction would be minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.

As described further in Section 4.8, Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality, the project site is greater than one acre and would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with the Construction General Permit is reinforced through the PMC in Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Section 9.14.090(b)(3) of this chapter prohibits development within 20 feet of the top of a bank or within 30 feet of the creek centerline unless a written permit has been obtained from the Public Works Director. The project would be required to include recommendations made within the Geotechnical Investigation, including the installation of stitch piers along the top of the existing creek bank to retain the soil and surcharge forces from behind the piers. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and PMC would ensure that the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 41 The Geotechnical Investigation evaluated soils at the project site and determined that soils have low expansion potential (Appendix D). Additionally, as discussed previously, the project would be required to comply with the CBC and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, which would further minimize risk associated with expansive soils. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property associated with expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Final EIR for the DSP, development in the DSP area would be required to connect to existing wastewater systems. The project would not involve use of a septic system or alternative wastewater systems, and there would be no impact.

Overall, with compliance with the CBC, PMC, and the recommendations made within the Geotechnical Investigation, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts associated with geology and seismicity.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to geology and seismicity compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased geology and seismicity impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Because the DSP would facilitate the development of commercial uses, the Final EIR acknowledges that development could require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials.

These materials would be subject to several federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, transportation, treatment, disposal, and accidental release of hazardous materials, and compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for the DSP to result in a significant hazard to the public or environment related to hazardous materials. Similarly, because the DSP would not introduce land uses that would handle or emit large amounts of hazardous materials such as industrial land uses, the Final EIR concludes impacts related to the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The DSP would introduce a variety of land uses within 0.25 mile of three existing Pleasanton Unified School District schools, as well as multiple childcare centers. While construction and operation of projects facilitated by the DSP would involve the use of hazardous materials, they would be in small quantities and would not present a substantial risk to nearby schools and childcare centers. As discussed above, the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to several federal, state, and local regulations that would minimize the risk of hazardous emissions. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that compliance with existing regulations would minimize impacts to schools and childcare centers to a less than significant level.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

42 The Final EIR identified 11 sites in the DSP area which are located on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, one of which is active. The Final EIR concludes that compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to development on designated hazardous materials sites would minimize potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The Final EIR determined that there are no airports within two miles of the DSP area and development facilitated by the DSP would not be subject to safety hazards associated with an airport or private airstrip. Impacts would be less than significant.

The DSP area is subject to the emergency response and operation plans of Alameda County and the City of Pleasanton. The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be subject to DSP policies regarding emergency access, as well as PMC design standards for new roads and buildings which would ensure adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that compliance with the DSP policies and the PMC would minimize impacts related to emergency evacuation or response to a less than significant level.

Because the DSP area is not adjacent to undeveloped lands or wildlands, the risk of wildfire is low and the Final EIR concluded that development facilitated by the DSP would not expose people ort structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The following analysis incorporates information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Subsurface Investigation (ESA) prepared for the project by Ramboll Consulting, Inc. In November 2020. The ESA is included as Appendix E. The ESA identified one recognized environmental condition within the project site, which consisted of areas of elevated lead in shallow soil. The top two feet of soil near current and former structures within the site contain concentrations of lead that exceed State regulatory screening criteria for residential land use but is below federal thresholds. Grading for building pads is expected to reach as much as three feet below the surface and excavations for utility lines and stormwater infrastructure would reach as much as nine feet below the surface. The ESA also identified a potential former underground storage tank within the project site; however, subsurface soil sampling did not identify fuel constituents or other contaminants that exceed screening criteria for residential land use, and no further investigation was recommended (Appendix E).

The project would result in the construction and operation of a new mixed-use development.

Project construction would include the temporary transport, storage, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, or project site soils containing elevated levels of lead. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. However, as discussed in the Final EIR, the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. Such regulation includes U.S. Department of Transportation regulations (Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5).

Additionally, project construction would involve grading of soils potentially contaminated with lead and demolition of all structures on site except the existing single-family residence, and due to their age, these structures may contain asbestos. Demolition and grading could result in upset and

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 43 release of asbestos and lead into the environment. Demolition and construction would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which intends to control the emission of asbestos during demolition and construction activities. Rule 2 requires surveys for asbestos to be conducted prior to demolition activities that would disturb materials that might contain asbestos. BAAQMD also collects fees for demolition activities subject to this rule (BAAQMD 2018). Construction would also be required to comply with California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, which requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure does not exceed CalOSHA standards. Compliance with BAAQMD and State regulations would minimize the emission of asbestos during project demolition, and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in the Final EIR, the operation of residential and commercial uses would not require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, and likewise, the commercial and residential uses proposed as part of the project would not involve hazardous materials other than those used for typical household and landscape activities and vehicular operation. The minimal amounts of household hazardous wastes on-site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, given the presence of up to two feet of soils contaminated with lead on the project site, there would be the potential for future residents to be exposed to contaminated soils. City of Pleasanton General Plan Program 17.1 calls for environmental investigations to ensure that soils, groundwater, and buildings affected by hazard material releases from prior land uses, including lead, would not have the potential to affect the health and safety of future property owners or users. Since the environmental investigation (Phase I ESA and Subsurface Investigation, as included as Appendix E) found lead soil contamination, the City would apply a COA to implement this General Plan program. Suggested text for the implementing COA is presented below. With implementation of COAs as required by General Plan Program 17.1, this impact would be less than significant.

Condition of Approval
 Soil Remediation: Where soil is identified to be present within the construction envelope at the project site at chemical concentrations exceeding ESLs and/or hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to properly dispose of the contaminated soil. The qualified environmental consultant shall utilize the project site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified consultant shall provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate. Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls may require additional delineation of sub- surface impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling. The City shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction. The project applicant shall review and implement the project site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and implement the remedial engineering controls prior to construction. The City shall review and approve the project site disposal recommendations and remedial engineering controls prior to issuing a grading permit.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

44 A search of the SWRCB GeoTracker database and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database was conducted in September 2024. The project site is not within 0.25- mile of a cleanup site shown on the EnviroStor database (California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2024). The project site is within 0.25-mile of seven cleanup sites shown on the GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2024). Five of the sites are listed as “completed – case closed,” which indicates that required remediation has occurred and the project is no longer a hazards or hazardous materials concern. The two active cleanup sites are dry cleaning facilities. These sites are 0.2 mile south of the project site, and the proposed project would not involve modifications to these cleanup sites. The ESA included an environmental regulatory database review, and determined there are no hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site (Appendix E). Therefore, the project site would not be located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and there would be no impact.

The nearest school to the project site is Amador Valley School, located approximately 0.25 mile north of the project site. Shining Light Preschool and several over childcare centers are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. As described above, the project would not involve the routine use of hazardous materials and would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school. Impacts would be less than significant.

The nearest airport to the project site is the Livermore Municipal Airport, which is 3.7 miles northeast of the project site. The project site, like the DSP area, is not within the airport influence area of the airport (Alameda County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not require road closures and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. There would be no impact.

The project site is within a Local Responsibility Area for fire protection services, as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is located 1.8 miles southwest of the project site (CAL FIRE 2020). Because the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. No impact would occur.

Overall, project impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to hazards and hazardous materials compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased hazards and hazardous materials impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 45

5.8 Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR concluded that the DSP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with the region’s NPDES permit, which includes preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) if applicable, and would also be required to comply with stormwater and erosion control standards outlined in the PMC. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR includes an analysis of groundwater supply and determined that development facilitated by the DSP would draw have a groundwater demand of 21 acre-feet per year (AFY), which represents 0.6 percent of the City’s reasonably available volume of groundwater. Additionally, the Final EIR determined that because the DSP area is already largely built out, development and redevelopment facilitated by the DSP would not increase the total impervious surface area of the DSP area and would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Development would be required to comply with several regional and local programs pertaining to stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, including the Alameda Countywide C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, the Construction General Permit, and Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for sanitary sewer flows. With compliance with existing federal, state, and local programs, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would not result in substantial decreases in groundwater supply or substantial interference with groundwater recharge and impacts would be less than significant.

Because the DSP area is already largely built out, the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the DSP area, including through the alteration of a stream or river. Individual projects would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP with erosion, stormwater control, and sediment control BMPs as required by the Construction General Permit to manage erosion, siltation, and flooding impacts during construction, in operation. If projects facilitated by the DSP result in a net increase in impervious area or are larger than one acre, they would be required to implement hydromodification management BMPs. The Final EIR concludes that compliance with state, regional, and local programs and regulations, development facilitated by the DSP would not result in substantial alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the DSP area and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not substantially degrade water quality. Existing local ordinances in the PMC and DSP policies would minimize and control sources of water pollutants, and impacts related to substantial degradation of water quality would be less than significant.

The Final EIR concludes that because only a small portion of the DSP area is within a designated flood zone (areas adjacent to Arroyo del Valle), development facilitated by the DSP would not impede or redirect flood flows. Further, Policies LD-P.61, LD-P.62, and LD-P.63 would ensure conservation of the Arroyo Del Valle through design and best management practices. PMC Section

9.14.090 prohibits development within 20 feet of the top of a watercourse bank without a permit, which would minimize risks associated with flood hazards and redirection of flood flows. Similarly, because the DSP area is not proximate to the ocean or a large body of water subject to seiche, impacts related to inundation would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

46 Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is immediately south of and adjacent to Arroyo del Valle, and the project would include construction of residences in the northern portion of the project site along Arroyo del Valle.

The project site is within the Wildland Overlay of the City’s General Plan and has a DSP designation of Open Space Arroyo. Residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank, and the project would not include modifications to the bed, bank or channel of Arroyo del Valle.

Construction of the proposed project would involve excavation activities that could result in erosion and sedimentation that could substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, the project site is greater than one acre and would be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the project, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. The project applicant would be required to submit the SWPPP to the City for approval and to the SWRCB’s Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System. In addition, the project applicant would be required to comply with the following Pleasanton standard conditions of approval:

Standard Conditions of Approval
 Erosion Control Measures For Subdivisions: The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan designed by a certified Qualified SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan) Designer (QSD) for all projects disturbing 1 acre or more or by a California licensed civil engineer or California licensed landscape architect for all projects disturbing less than 1 acre of land, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. All cut and fill slopes shall be hydromulched/hydroseeded and stabilized immediately after the completion of grading work and in no case later than October 1, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. No grading shall occur between October 1 and April 30 unless erosion control measures are in place, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Such measures shall be maintained until the permanent landscaping is completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Notice of Termination for the coverage under the Construction General Permit, if applicable, is approved by the California State Water Resources Board.  Erosion Control and Hazard Mitigation Bond: The applicant shall submit a refundable cash deposit to the Engineering Division for erosion control and hazard mitigation in an amount determined by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a encroachment, grading or subdivision permit, whichever occurs first. The City will retain the cash deposit until all work is substantially complete, all areas are stabilized, and all hazards are mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
 Stormwater Treatment: The project creates and/or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) and shall comply with Section “C.3.b Regulated Projects” of the NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, and amendments, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The improvements plans shall include the Stormwater Management Plan prepared by a California licensed civil engineer, indicating the

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 47 type and locations of stormwater treatment measures to be installed (numbered sequentially for identification purposes), and sizing calculations. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of an engineering or building permit, whichever occurs first.
 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The applicant shall submit one hard copy and one PDF copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building or engineering permit, whichever occurs first. A hard copy of the City-accepted SWPPP shall be available at the project site until all work is complete and engineering and building permits have been finalized. A site specific SWPPP shall be combined with proper and timely installation of the Best Management Practices, thorough and frequent inspections, maintenance, and documentation. Failure to comply with the reviewed construction SWPPP may result in issuance of correction notices, citations, or a stop work order.
 Excess Soil And Soil Stockpiling: All excess soil from the site shall be off-hauled from the site and disposed of in a lawful manner. No temporary stockpiling of dirt on this site shall occur without specific review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

The DSP also includes policies, listed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which would minimize the impacts of construction on Arroyo del Valle. Compliance with existing DSP policies and state and local regulations would avoid or minimize erosion and contamination to the extent feasible by requiring erosion and sediment controls and runoff water quality monitoring. With compliance with these existing policies and regulations, the proposed project would not result in violations to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR includes an analysis of groundwater supply and estimated water demand for projects associated with envisioned land uses in the DSP area. The project site is currently designated for Downtown Commercial use, and the project would involve changing the site’s land use to allow for residential use. Although the project would involve different land uses than what originally envisioned in the DSP, the project would facilitate the development of residential and commercial uses, which is consistent with development envisioned by the DSP and accounted for in its water supply analysis. Therefore, the water demand associated with the proposed project has been accounted for in water supply estimates in the Final EIR. Additionally, the project would result in a net decrease in impervious surface area within the project site, and stormwater and irrigation runoff generated by the project would be collected and directed to onsite bioretention areas and modular suspended pavement systems (often referred to as “Silva cells”). Stormwater would be managed pursuant to Chapter 9.14, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the PMC, and no water would be directly released into Arroyo del Valle. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site. Impacts would be less than significant.

According to flood maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the portion of the project site that borders Arroyo del Valle is within a Zone AE flood hazard zone, which includes areas subject to a one percent annual chance of a flood (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2023). Arroyo del Valle is also designated as a regulatory floodway, which means that the channel of the arroyo must be maintained so that flood waters may flow through the arroyo without increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. The project would not involve construction within the flood hazard zone and residences would be set back 20 feet from the top of the existing bank. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

Additionally, as a primarily residential development, the project would not involve storage of

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

48 hazardous materials in large quantities (see Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials); the project would not risk substantial release of pollutants due to project inundation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Although not discussed in the Final EIR, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. The project site overlies the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Zone 7 Water Agency. As discussed above and further in Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, the DSP area would have adequate water supply and would not result in a substantial decrease in groundwater supplies. The project has been accounted for in water demand estimates for the DSP area; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to hydrology, drainage, and water quality compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased hydrology, drainage, and water quality impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.9 Land Use, Population, and Housing
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not physically divide an established community, as the DSP would facilitate infill development of vacant land and redevelopment of existing properties in the urbanized downtown area of Pleasanton. The goals and policies of the DSP, as well as its land use plan, were drafted and designed to promote compatibility with existing land uses. The Final EIR concludes that impacts to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant. Additionally, the Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. The Final EIR estimated that the DSP would facilitate a 29 percent increase in the DSP area’s population by 2040, compared to 2018 population levels, which is equivalent to a 1.2 percent annual increase in DSP area population. The Final EIR determined that this 1.2 percent annual increase is consistent with population projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments, the California Department of Transportation, and the California Department of Finance. Therefore, the DSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

Because the DSP is intended to redevelop underutilized properties within the DSP area, the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be unlikely to result in the displacement of significant numbers of existing residents or housing units. The DSP does not propose to convert established residential areas into non-residential land uses, and existing residential areas would

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 49 retain a residential land use designation. The Final EIR concludes that impacts related to displacement of people and housing would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial and Offices, and Public Health and Safety with a Wildland Overlay. The project site currently has a DSP land use designation of Downtown Commercial and Open Space Arroyo. The project site is currently zoned as Central Commercial and Downtown Revitalization District. The project would involve changing the zoning of the project site to a Planned Unit Development. As summarized in Table 1, the project would be generally consistent with the City’s Downtown Development Guidelines, but would require rezoning to allow for the construction of 14 residential units. With completion of a PUD mixed-use application and approval from the City, the project would not conflict with zoning requirements or the site’s zoning classification. Additionally, the project would be consistent with the overarching goals of the DSP. Chapter 4, Land Use and Design, of the DSP encourages developing the downtown area as a dynamic mixed use destination with commercial, residential and other mixed land uses, and Goal LD-G.1 of the Land Use and Design chapter encourages improving the downtown’s commercial and residential viability. Policy LD-P.15, Map Annotations, of the DSP also states that the project site (475/493 St. John Street) may redevelop to a mixed use project, which allows for residential with approval of a PUD application.

The project would not physically divide an established community. A physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, roadway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between communities. The project site is two contiguous private parcels; there are currently no means of access across the project site; and the project would not impair mobility or close an existing street. For these reasons, the project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.

The project would be required to conform with applicable existing General Plan and DSP policies and to comply with the PMC and Pleasanton standard conditions approval that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. These policies include but are not limited to General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element policies and DSP policies that pertain to enhancement and protection of Arroyo del Valle and other environmental resources within the DSP area, as well as PMC regulations and Pleasanton COAs that pertain to stormwater management, tree protection, cultural resources, and other environmental resources within the city. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies adopted for this purpose and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would involve demolition of a single-story accessory dwelling unit. The existing single- family residence would remain, and no other residential structures are proposed for demolition.

Therefore, the project would not displace a significant number of people or housing units. The project would include construction of 14 attached single-family residences and one ADU. The average number of persons per household in Pleasanton is 2.62 (California Department of Finance 2024a); assuming each proposed residential unit is occupied by an average number of persons per household, and assuming a maximum growth scenario in which all residents would relocate to Pleasanton from elsewhere, the project would generate a population increase of approximately 37 people. As summarized in Table 1, the DSP is anticipated to facilitate an increase of 370 housing units and 1,000 people; the 15 housing units and 40 people associated with the proposed project would represent approximately 4 percent of the anticipated increase in housing units and

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

50 population. Therefore, the proposed project has been accounted for in population growth projections for the DSP, and the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Although the project site is not currently designated for residential use under the DSP the addition of residential units would not result in exceedance of anticipated population. The average number of persons per household at present (2024), 2.62 persons, is lower than the estimate used in the Final DSP EIR (2.83 persons). Additionally, the Final EIR estimated the increased population against the city’s 2018 population, which was 78,244 people (California Department of Finance 2023b). The population of Pleasanton has since decreased, and the city has a current (2024) population of 75,960 people (California Department of Finance 2024). Therefore, although the DSP did not originally account for residential use at the project site, the project would not result in an increase in population beyond what was estimated in the DSP EIR. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to land use and planning compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
There would be no impact, or impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased land use and planning impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.10 Noise
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that noise and vibration-related impacts from new development under the DSP EIR could be divided into short-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to construction activities) and long-term impacts (i.e., those impacts related to major operational noise sources such as traffic and operational equipment). New development would comply with the construction noise standards and daytime construction hours permitted by the PMC and policies to minimize construction noise. Therefore, construction noise and vibration impacts were found to be less than significant.

The Final EIR stated that audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater, since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments.

Compliance with the policies and the noise reduction requirements and design features required under the City's General Plan Noise Element would ensure that implementation of the DSP would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that operational noise under the DSP EIR would generate noise associated with outdoor open space and mechanical equipment, such as rooftop-mounted HVAC equipment.

These impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City of Pleasanton’s exterior noise standards pursuant to PMC Section 9.04.030 and 9.04.040.

The Final EIR determined that traffic under the DSP EIR would generate new vehicle trips and incrementally increase traffic on area roadways that would increase roadway noise at nearby

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 51 residences. However, this increase would be imperceptible and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Traffic noise would be less than significant.

As identified in the Final EIR, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the DSP area. Therefore, implementation of the land use changes and policies consistent with the DSP EIR would have no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Construction Noise
Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located approximately 65 feet from the center of the project site to the nearest sensitive receivers but would typically be located at an average distance further away due to the nature of construction where equipment is mobile throughout the day. The nearest sensitive receivers include the -family residence on site, residences adjacent to the project site to the west, and residences across St. John Street to the south and across Arroyo del Valle to the north. Because construction would occur at different distances from the nearby sensitive receivers, construction analysis utilizes the distance to nearby sensitive from the center of the project site.

Table 8 identifies the construction noise levels at the closest sensitive receivers based on the combined use of the three loudest pieces of construction equipment during each phase of construction.

Table 8 Estimated Noise Levels by Construction Phase at Sensitive Receivers Leq dBA
Construction Activity
Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
50 feet
Residences to the
southwest
65 feet
Residences to the
west
110 feet
Residences to the
south
270 feet
Commercial
to the east
110 feet
Demolition 81 79 74 66 74
Site Preparation 81 79 74 66 74
Grading 84 82 77 69 77
Building Construction 82 80 75 67 75
Paving 87 85 80 72 80
Notes: Calculations performed with the FHWA’s RCNM software are included in Appendix F.

Noise levels rounded to the nearest whole number.

The City Noise Ordinance allows for maximum sound pressure levels of 86 dBA at any point outside of the property plane. Therefore, noise generated by temporary construction work associated with the project would not exceed the maximum sound pressure levels. As shown in Table 8, construction noise could be as high as approximately 80 dBA L eq at the edge of the project site
where paving is expected to occur closest to the nearby sensitive receivers to the west and south.

Therefore, construction noise levels with this equipment would not exceed the City of Pleasanton Noise Ordinance threshold of 86 dBA Leq at residential land uses. Therefore, construction noise levels would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

52 Groundborne Vibration
Operation of the project would not include substantial vibration sources. Thus, construction activities would have the greatest potential to generate ground-borne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and paving of the project site. The greatest vibratory source during construction would be a vibratory roller. Neither blasting nor pile driving would be required for construction of the proposed project. Table 9 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the assessment of construction vibration (FTA 2018).

Table 9 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV
(in/sec) at
25 Feet
Vibration
Damage
(VdB) at
25 Feet
Single family
Residence at 493 St.

John Street
65 feet
Multi-family
residential to the
west
110 feet
Commercial to the
east
110 feet
PPV VdB PPV VdB PPV VdB PPV VdB
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94 0.050 75 0.023 82 0.023 75
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 0.021 68 0.010 75 0.010 68
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 0.018 67 0.008 74 0.008 67
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 0.001 39 0.000 46 0.000 39
Sources: FTA 2018
Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as a vibratory roller within approximately 65 feet of the existing on-site residential building to the southwest of the project site along St. John Street from the center of construction activity. A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV and 94 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018). This would equal a vibration level of 0.050 in/sec PPV and 82 VdB at a distance of 65 feet. This would be lower than the non- engineered timber and masonry building threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV and 94 VdB. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with the vibratory roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

The project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations. No operational vibration impact would occur.

Operational Noise
M

ECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be HVAC units for the residential and commercial buildings. There would be three HVAC units on each of the proposed commercial buildings within the project site. Specific planning data for the future HVAC systems are not available at this stage of project design; however, this analysis assumes the use of a typical HVAC system for commercial uses, which has a sound power level of 85 dBA that is equivalent to a sound pressure level (SPL) of 77 dBA at 3 feet. The unit used in this analysis is a 16.7-ton Carrier 38AUD25 split system condenser (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications). The project would contain three HVAC units located in a rooftop mechanical area on each commercial building, which has a combined noise level of 82 dBA.

In addition, each residential unit is assumed to have one ground-mounted HVAC unit on each of the proposed residential buildings. For purposes of this analysis, a typical HVAC system for residential uses (2.5-ton Carrier 24ABA4030) was analyzed, which has a sound power level of 73 dBA that is

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 53 equivalent to sound pressure level (SPL) of 65 dBA at 3 feet (see Appendix F for manufacturer’s specifications).

Pursuant to PMC Section 9.04.030 and 9.04.040, project impacts would be significant if exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA at a residential property and 70 dBA at a commercial property at any point outside of the property plane. For purposes of this analysis, the closest three units to the sensitive receptor were analyzed. Rooftop mounted HVAC units would be located as close as 140 feet from the nearest residential property west of the project site, and 20 feet from the commercial properties east of the project. Combined noise levels of three HVAC units generated by rooftop HVACs would be approximately 47 dBA Leq at 140 feet and 66 dBA Leq at 20 feet, which would not exceed exterior daytime and nighttime noise standards of 60 dBA Leq for residential properties and 70 dBA Leq for commercial properties. Ground-mounted HVAC units on the proposed residential units would be located as close as 15 feet to the residential property to the west. Noise levels of a residential HVAC unit would be approximately 51 dBA Leq at 15 feet to the residential property to the west, which would not exceed the exterior daytime and nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA Leq at residential properties. In addition, this is a conservative analysis that does not consider possible mechanical equipment shielding or attenuated from the rooftop edges. Therefore, impacts related to HVAC equipment noise would be less than significant.

T

RAFFIC NOISE
The Trip Generation Assessment prepared by the City of Pleasanton was used to estimate traffic noise associated with the project. Refer to Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation, for the Trip Generation Assessment. As discussed in Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation, and shown in Table 10, the net vehicle trips would decrease, given the removal of the existing restaurant currently occupying the project site The project would not make substantial alterations to roadway alignments or substantially change the vehicle classifications mix on local roadways. Therefore, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes.

In order for a barely perceptible noise increase of at least 3 dBA to occur, the project would need to result in a doubling of traffic on the affected road segment. Given that vehicle trips generated on the project site would decrease as a result of the project (see Section 5.12, Traffic and Transportation), traffic noise on local roadways, such as St. John Street, would also decrease.

Therefore, the traffic noise from the project would not result in a noise level increase and traffic noise would be below the barely perceptible noise increase of 3 dBA and impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Noise
The project site remains outside the vicinity of an airport land use plan, public airport, or private airstrip, and no impact would occur.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur related to noise compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary. The Final EIR would continue to apply to the Barone’s project. Operational and construction noise impacts would remain less than significant and would not require mitigation.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

54 Conclusion
Noise impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant, similar to the impacts determined in the Final EIR. No significant new or substantially increased noise impacts would occur compared to the original project.

5.11 Public Facilities and Recreation
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The Final EIR reports that the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department does not foresee a need for new or expanded facilities to accommodate planned growth within the DSP area, and existing City policies and regulations would reduce the number of calls for fire protection services by minimizing fire risks. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities.

The City adopted the Pleasanton Civic Center/Library Master Plan in 2016, which outlines the City’s plan to construct a new civic center and library outside of the DSP area. The Final EIR reports that the Pleasanton Police Department does not foresee the need for new or expanded police protection facilities beyond those already planned to accommodate buildout of the DSP. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered fire facilities.

The Final EIR estimated that the DSP would facilitate an increase of 95 school-aged children.

Because the Pleasanton Unified School District anticipated a student population increase at the time the Final EIR was prepared, and because development in the DSP area would be required to pay a School Facility Impact Fee, the Final EIR concluded that impacts to school facilities would be less than significant, and the DSP would not require new or physically altered school facilities.

The DSP would include additional parkland, and the population increase facilitated by the DSP would not cause the City to fall below its target of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Therefore, the DSP would not require new or physically altered park and recreational facilities.

Overall, the DSP would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental or recreational facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. The Final EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing, the proposed project would not induce a substantial, unplanned increase in population or housing units within the DSP area. The project’s anticipated increase in population and housing units was accounted for in the Final EIR for the DSP. As discussed in the Final EIR and summarized above, the DSP would not require new or physically altered governmental facilities or park and recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would also not require new or physically altered governmental facilities or park and recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 55 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to public facilities and recreation compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased public facilities and recreation impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.12 Traffic and Transportation
The Final EIR was prepared and certified prior to adoption of the final CEQA guidelines that would change the metric of transportation analyses under CEQA from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). LOS, a measure of traffic congestion, was replaced as the metric of transportation analyses by VMT pursuant to Senate Bill 743. While a preliminary assessment of VMT generated by the DSP was prepared, it was included in the Final EIR (Section 3.12, Traffic and Transportation) for informational purposes only.

Changes in regulations after approval of the original EIR do not constitute new information triggering a supplemental or subsequent EIR (Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin [2013] 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nor does it require a previously analyzed topics, such as the change from the LOS standard to the VMT standard for traffic, to be reassessed under the new requirements (Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach [2023] 93 Cal.App.5 th 270, 280–281). In conformance
with this standard, the following analysis is presented in terms of LOS to demonstrate consistency with the Final EIR. A brief VMT analysis is included for informational purposes only.

Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that implementation of the DSP could conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness of the circulation system, as vehicle traffic generated by the DSP would result in some intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS standard. Additionally, queue lengths at several intersections were projected to exceed available vehicle storage at several intersections, which would be considered a significant impact. In terms of VMT, which the Final EIR considered for informational purposes only, the VMT per capita of the DSP area would slightly decrease as a result of the DSP due to goals and policies that would encourage alternative modes of transportation. The Final EIR included mitigation measures TRA-1 through TRA- 8, which would involve various modifications to area intersections (including but not limited to installing traffic signals, adding travel lanes or turn lanes, or extending turn lanes) to reduce impacts to LOS and vehicle queuing to a less than significant level. The Final EIR concluded that impacts to traffic and transportation would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and the transit support policies of the DSP.

The Final EIR determined that the DSP would not conflict with an existing applicable congestion management program, or the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Congestion Management Plan. Vehicle traffic generated by the DSP would not cause study intersections on routes of regional significance operate below the standard of LOS E. Additionally, the Final EIR

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

56 concluded that the DSP would not result in a change to air traffic patterns and would not substantially increase hazards due to design features, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR states that emergency accessibility is typically assessed at the project level. Because the DSP includes goals and policies related to the provision of adequate emergency access and because emergency accessibility would be evaluated for individual projects, the DSP would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR states that the DSP is centered on a complete-streets approach, and includes goals and policies related to the performance and safety of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the DSP area. However, the bicycle facilities proposed by the DSP are inconsistent with those envisioned in the City’s 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Final EIR includes Mitigation Measure TRA-9, which would involve conducting a feasibility study for bicycle facilities in the DSP area. With this mitigation measure, the DSP would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, impacts to traffic and transportation would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The proposed project would not modify or inhibit use of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities on St. John Street and in the DSP area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

As discussed above, SB 743 and the subsequent amendment of the CEQA Guidelines was not incorporated into CEQA at the time the Final EIR was prepared and certified, and therefore this analysis is prepared in terms of LOS. As discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing of this Addendum, the project would generate a population increase of 14 housing units and up to approximately 37 people, and the DSP is anticipated to facilitate an increase of 370 housing units and 1,000 people. The 14 housing units and 37 people associated with the proposed project would represent approximately 4 percent of the anticipated increase in housing units and population associated with the DSP, and the proposed project is within the population growth projections for the DSP as analyzed in the EIR. Additionally, as shown in Table 10, the proposed project would generate a relatively small increase in trips over existing uses at the site, which would not substantially affect the LOS of study intersections in the DSP area. Accordingly, growth associated with the proposed project was captured in the Final EIR’s traffic and transportation analysis, and the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the Final EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 57 Table 10 Existing and Estimated Daily Trip Generation
Land Use
Average Rate Units/Area Total Trips1
Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday
Existing Conditions
Residential 7.20 8.76 7.17 2 units 14.4 17.5 14.3
Restaurant 83.8 90.0 72.0 1,877 sq ft 157 169 135
Total Trips 172 187 149
Proposed Project Conditions
Residential 7.20 8.76 7.17 16 units2 115 140 115
Downtown commercial 37.0 46.6 19.0 3,107 sq ft 115 145 59 Total 216 268 160
Proposed Project Difference Compared to Existing Conditions Residential +100 +123 +100
Commercial +115 +145 +60
Restaurant -157 -169 -135
Total Difference +58 +99 +25
Existing and estimated trips were calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
1 Total trips were calculated by multiplying the average rate for each land use by the units or the area for that land use (e.g., under Existing Conditions, 7.20 average weekday trips for residential land uses multiplied by 2 residential units is 14 total weekday trips for residential uses).
2 The 16 residential units on the project site include two residences to remain plus the 14 proposed units.

As shown above, the trip generation estimates indicate that the proposed project would result in a net increase of 58 weekday trips, 99 Saturday trips, and 25 Sunday trips compared to existing conditions. As explained above Table 10, this information is presented for informational purposes only; because the project would not result in greater impacts to LOS than those identified in the Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Vehicle access to the project site would be available via the existing driveway on St. John Street.

Residential, commercial, and emergency vehicles would be able to access and circulate through the project site via this driveway and the proposed internal driveway, which would provide access to each proposed residence and the parking lot of the proposed commercial building. The project driveway is designed to accommodate the turning radii of emergency vehicles, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, as a primarily residential, mixed-use project, the project would not require incompatible uses, such as farm equipment or other large vehicles, that would increase vehicle hazards at the project site. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts would be less than significant.

As described above, the project driveway is designed to accommodate the turning radii of emergency vehicles, which would be verified by the City prior to issuance of building permits.

Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

58 Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to transportation and circulation, and no new or revised mitigation measures are necessary. The project would not include bicycle facilities or conflict with bicycle and pedestrian plans or infrastructure.

Conclusion
There would be no impact, or impacts would be less than significant and generally reduced compared to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased transportation impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.13 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not violate wastewater treatment requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) or the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with existing state and local regulations and policies related to wastewater treatment requirements, and growth facilitated by the DSP is accounted for in the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities. The Final EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the DSP determined that Pleasanton’s existing potable water supplies would be sufficient for new demand generated by the DSP. Additionally, the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant was determined to have significant remaining capacity. Therefore, the DSP would not require new or expanded water or wastewater facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental effects. Development facilitated by the DSP would be required to comply with state, regional, and local requirements to capture, retain, and infiltrate stormwater runoff. The Final EIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant.

The Final EIR determined that landfills that serve the DSP area have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the DSP’s solid waste disposal needs, and growth facilitated by the DSP would not result in the generation of solid waste that would exceed capacity or federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
As described in Section 4.9, Land Use, Population, and Housing, the project would not generate housing units or population growth that would exceed growth anticipated by the DSP and the Final EIR. The project would also include 3,100 square feet of commercial space; the Final EIR anticipated an increase of 260,700 square feet of non-residential space across the Specific Plan area, and the commercial uses included in the proposed project are accounted for in that estimate. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate housing, population, or commercial uses beyond what was evaluated in the Final EIR. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Final EIR determined that development facilitated by the DSP would be served by sufficient water supplies. Therefore, the

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 59 proposed project would have adequate water supply and would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded water facilities. Additionally, the project would have sufficient water supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is located in a developed area already served by existing water, wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities. The proposed project would connect to existing infrastructure. Because the project is accounted for in development anticipated by the Final EIR, the project would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater, stormwater, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. During construction, the current CalGreen code would require that 65 percent of construction and demolition debris be diverted from landfills. Handling of debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to CalGreen requirements, compliance with which would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Operation of the project would generate an estimated 33 tons of solid waste per year. This estimation is based on solid waste generation rates provided by the California Department of Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), which estimates that residential uses generate 10 pounds of solid waste per dwelling unit per day and that commercial uses generate 13 pounds of solid waste per 1,000 square feet per day (CalRecycle 2021). 4 Solid waste from the project site would be collected by Pleasanton Garbage Service and likely sent to the Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill. Table 11 shows the project’s estimated solid waste generation and the remaining capacity of this landfill.

Table 11 Generated Solid Waste and Estimated Landfill Capacity Project Solid Waste Generation
(tons/day)
Permitted Throughput of Vasco
(tons/day)
Remaining Capacity of Altamont
(cubic yards)

0.09 2,518 11,560,000
Source: CalRecycle 2019
Project generated waste would be less than 0.01 percent of Vasco Road Landfill’s allowable waste limit, and the landfill has adequate remaining capacity. Therefore, the project’s incremental increase in solid waste would not adversely affect solid waste facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to utilities and service systems compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

4 The project would include 14 residences. 14 residences multiplied by 10 pounds of solid waste per day, multiplied by 365 days per year, equals 51,000 pounds of solid waste per year, or 25.5 tons per year. The project would include 3,100 square feet of commercial use. 13 pounds of solid waste per day, multiplied by 3.1 thousand square feet, multiplied by 365 days per year, equals 14,709 pounds of solid waste per year, or 7.4 tons per year. 25.5 tons plus 7.4 tons is approximately 33 tons of solid waste per year.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

60 Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased utilities and service systems impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.14 Wildfire
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
The Final EIR analyzed impacts related to wildfire in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The project site is within a Local Responsibility Area for fire protection services as designated by CAL FIRE, but is not in or near a state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The nearest VHFHSZ is located 1.8 miles southwest of the project site (CAL FIRE 2020).

The project would not require roadway closures and would not introduce a significant number of new vehicles to area roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no impact.

The project site is generally surrounded by urban development and is not adjacent to undeveloped lands or slopes that would be prone to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The project would not require the installation or maintenance of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and surrounded by development and would not expose people or structures to flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire slope instability.

Because the project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as VHFHSZs and is in an urbanized area, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. No impact would occur.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to wildfire compared with those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
No significant new or substantially increased wildfire impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

5.15 Impacts Not Potentially Significant in the Final EIR The Final EIR considered agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources in Section 3.14, Impacts not Potentially Significant, of the DSP EIR.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Changes to the Original Project

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 61 Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The DSP area does not contain lands that are designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, or Unique Farmland, and there are no areas zoned for agricultural use or enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact on agricultural resources.

The DSP area supports tree cover but does not contain areas that represent forestry resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) or timber resources as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact to forestry resources.

Mineral Resources
The DSP area is located entirely within a developed urban area, and there are no identified mineral resources that would be affected or made unavailable by buildout of the DSP. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes that the DSP would have no impact to mineral resources.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
As discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area, including the project site, does not include Farmland, areas zoned for agricultural use, property enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, forestry resources, timber resources, or areas zoned for timber production. The project would have no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.

Mineral Resources
As discussed in the Final EIR, the DSP area, including the project site, does not include areas known to contain mineral resources, and the project would not affect or make unavailable mineral resources. The project would have no impacts to mineral resources.

Effects and Mitigation Measures
No new or substantially more severe significant effects would occur to agriculture and forestry resources or mineral resources compared to those identified in the Final EIR, and no new mitigation measures are necessary.

Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Final EIR, and no significant new or substantially increased agriculture and forestry resources or mineral resources impacts would occur compared to those identified in the Final EIR.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

62 5.16 Other CEQA Required Considerations
Impacts Identified in the Certified Final EIR
Growth-Inducing Impacts
The Final EIR determined that although the DSP would result in a population increase, the anticipated population growth would be generally consistent with projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the residential development proposed under the DSP would assist the city in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goal. Ther Final EIR also determined that the DSP would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities and services, and would not result in a jobs-to-housing ratio in downtown Pleasanton that would induce new residential growth.

Cumulative Impacts
The Final EIR includes an analysis of potential cumulative impacts that could occur if implementation of the DSP occurs concurrently with other regional growth and development. The Final EIR determined that the DSP would have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to water supply, but would not otherwise contribute considerably to cumulative impacts.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The Final EIR identified that implementation of the DSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and energy and GHG emissions. While the Final EIR concluded that impacts to transportation and traffic would be less than significant with mitigation, the Final EIR acknowledges that there is no guarantee that roadway modifications outlined in the traffic and transportation mitigation measures would be implemented. Therefore, the Final EIR concludes in this section that potential impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Significant Irreversible Environmental Change
The Final EIR acknowledges that implementation of the DSP would involve irretrievable commitments of non-renewable resources, such as water for water demand generated by buildout of the DSP and the commitment of energy sources and increased energy use. Additionally, the DSP would result in irreversible construction-related impacts, such as the consumption of non- renewable building materials. Implementation of the DSP would also result in an irreversible increase in air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of development, and vehicle traffic generated by the DSP.

Impacts of the Barone’s Project
The proposed project would not substantially change the discussion and findings presented for the DSP in the Final EIR. The proposed project would not result in buildout beyond what is allowed by the DSP, as proposed land uses would be consistent with downtown land uses envisioned by the DSP. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in greater physical changes to the environment or more intense land uses than what is analyzed in the Final EIR. As described in Sections 4.1 through 4.15 above, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts beyond those identified in the previously certified Final EIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would also not result in new or more severe significant and unavoidable impacts, growth inducing effects, irreversible environmental effects, or energy effects beyond those previously discussed in the Final EIR.

Conclusion

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 63 6 Conclusion
As discussed in detail in the preceding sections, potential impacts associated with the Barone’s project are consistent with potential impacts characterized and mitigated for in the Final EIR.

Substantive revisions to the Final EIR are not necessary, because no new significant impacts or significant impacts of substantially greater severity than previously described would occur because of the Barone’s project. Thus, the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(3)(A) and (D) requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR would not be met.

Based on the analysis contained herein, the following determinations are applicable:
 No further evaluation of environmental impacts is required for the Barone’s project.  No subsequent EIR is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.  This addendum is the appropriate level of environmental analysis and documentation for the Barone’s project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), this addendum will be included in the public record for the Final EIR. Documents related to this addendum will be available at the City of Pleasanton Community Development Department, located at 200 Old Bernal Avenue in Pleasanton, California 94566.

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

64 This page intentionally left blank.

References and Preparers

Addendum to the City of Pleasanton Downtown Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 65 7 References and Preparers

7.1 References
Alameda, County of. 2012. Livermore Executive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/LVK_ALUCP_082012_FULL.p df (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Finance. 2023a. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and- housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023b. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2018. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed September 2023).
______. 2024. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ (accessed September 2024).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/9?siteID=8 (accessed September 2023).
______. 2021. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2024. EnviroStor database. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60002757 (accessed September 2024).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2023. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://hazards-
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd&extent=-121.94529102661183,36.5159779735144,-
121.90374897338809,36.53322138877889 (accessed September 2023).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

November. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2021. Transit Priority Areas, August 2021. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=370de9dc4d65402d992a769b f6ac8ef5 (accessed August 2023).

City of Pleasanton
475 and 493 St. John Street Mixed-Use Project

66 Pleasanton, City of. 2005. 2005 Pleasanton Plan 2025 – Noise Element. https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23914 (Accessed September 2023).
______. 2005. Conservation and Open Space Element.
https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23910 (accessed October 2023).
______. 2019. Downtown Specific Plan – Draft Environmental Impact Report. February 1, 2019. https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34567 (Accessed September 2023).
______. 2023. Traffic Engineering Division. 2020 Traffic Counts. (Accessed September 2023). ______. 2023. City of Pleasanton Municipal Code, Chapter 9.04 Noise Regulations. https://library.qcode.us/lib/pleasanton_ca/pub/municipal_code (Accessed September 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento# (accessed September 2024).

7.2 List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this addendum under contract to the City of Pleasanton. Persons and firms involved in data gathering, analysis, project management, and quality control include:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal-in-Charge
Jesse Voremberg, MS, Project Manager
Kayleigh Limbach, Environmental Planner
Bill Vosti, Technical Director
Aaron Rojas, Air Quality Analyst
Jesse McCandless, Noise Analyst
Alex Hunt, Natural Resources Director

Appendix A
California Emissions Estimator Model Calculations

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
1 / 92
Barone’s project Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
2 / 92

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
3 / 92

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
4 / 92

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
5 / 92

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
6 / 92

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
7 / 92

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
8 / 92

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
9 / 92

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Barone’s project
Construction Start Date 1/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 37.8
Location 493 St John St, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA
County Alameda
City Pleasanton
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1685
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.20

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
10 / 92
Single Family
Housing

14.0 Dwelling Unit 1.68 36,637 163,980 — 39.0 —
General Office
Building

3.10 1000sqft 0.00 3,100 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 25.0 Space 0.22 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

17.4 1000sqft 0.40 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Energy E-10-B Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems: Solar Power * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.47 23.5 27.8 0.04 0.89 0.08 0.95 0.82 0.02 0.83 — 4,081 4,081 0.16 0.04 0.35 4,098 Mit. 2.47 23.5 27.8 0.04 0.89 0.08 0.95 0.82 0.02 0.83 — 4,081 4,081 0.16 0.04 0.35 4,098 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
11 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 2.47 23.6 27.7 0.05 1.00 8.32 9.33 0.92 3.58 4.50 — 4,922 4,922 0.21 0.06 0.02 4,946 Mit. 2.47 23.6 27.7 0.05 1.00 3.35 4.35 0.92 1.42 2.34 — 4,922 4,922 0.21 0.06 0.02 4,946 %
Reduced
— — — — — 60% 53% — 60% 48% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.10 20.1 23.2 0.04 0.77 0.91 1.68 0.71 0.38 1.09 — 3,561 3,561 0.14 0.04 0.15 3,577 Mit. 2.10 20.1 23.2 0.04 0.77 0.40 1.17 0.71 0.16 0.87 — 3,561 3,561 0.14 0.04 0.15 3,577 %
Reduced
— — — — — 56% 31% — 58% 21% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.38 3.66 4.23 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.13 0.07 0.20 — 590 590 0.02 0.01 0.03 592 Mit. 0.38 3.66 4.23 0.01 0.14 0.07 0.21 0.13 0.03 0.16 — 590 590 0.02 0.01 0.03 592 %
Reduced
— — — — — 56% 31% — 58% 21% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.47 23.5 27.8 0.04 0.89 0.06 0.95 0.82 0.02 0.83 — 4,081 4,081 0.16 0.04 0.35 4,098 2026 2.35 22.8 27.6 0.04 0.81 0.08 0.88 0.75 0.02 0.76 — 4,077 4,077 0.16 0.04 0.33 4,094 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
12 / 92
2025 2.47 23.6 27.7 0.05 1.00 8.32 9.33 0.92 3.58 4.50 — 4,922 4,922 0.21 0.06 0.02 4,946 2026 2.35 22.8 27.6 0.04 0.81 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.02 0.76 — 4,074 4,074 0.16 0.04 0.01 4,090 2027 2.26 0.83 1.16 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 143 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.10 20.1 23.2 0.04 0.77 0.91 1.68 0.71 0.38 1.09 — 3,561 3,561 0.14 0.04 0.15 3,577 2026 1.99 12.6 15.3 0.02 0.45 0.04 0.48 0.41 0.01 0.42 — 2,248 2,248 0.09 0.02 0.08 2,257 2027 0.27 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.38 3.66 4.23 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.31 0.13 0.07 0.20 — 590 590 0.02 0.01 0.03 592 2026 0.36 2.30 2.79 < 0.005 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.08 — 372 372 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 374 2027 0.05 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 2.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.79

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.47 23.5 27.8 0.04 0.89 0.06 0.95 0.82 0.02 0.83 — 4,081 4,081 0.16 0.04 0.35 4,098 2026 2.35 22.8 27.6 0.04 0.81 0.08 0.88 0.75 0.02 0.76 — 4,077 4,077 0.16 0.04 0.33 4,094 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.47 23.6 27.7 0.05 1.00 3.35 4.35 0.92 1.42 2.34 — 4,922 4,922 0.21 0.06 0.02 4,946 2026 2.35 22.8 27.6 0.04 0.81 0.06 0.88 0.75 0.02 0.76 — 4,074 4,074 0.16 0.04 0.01 4,090 2027 2.26 0.83 1.16 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 143 143 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 143 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
13 / 92
2025 2.10 20.1 23.2 0.04 0.77 0.40 1.17 0.71 0.16 0.87 — 3,561 3,561 0.14 0.04 0.15 3,577 2026 1.99 12.6 15.3 0.02 0.45 0.04 0.48 0.41 0.01 0.42 — 2,248 2,248 0.09 0.02 0.08 2,257 2027 0.27 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 16.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.38 3.66 4.23 0.01 0.14 0.07 0.21 0.13 0.03 0.16 — 590 590 0.02 0.01 0.03 592 2026 0.36 2.30 2.79 < 0.005 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.08 — 372 372 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 374 2027 0.05 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 2.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.79

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.54 0.38 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,318 1,327 0.95 0.05 3.36 1,370 Mit. 1.54 0.38 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,164 1,172 0.92 0.05 3.36 1,214 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 12% 12% 3% 6% — 11%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.43 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,261 1,270 0.95 0.06 0.35 1,311 Mit. 1.43 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,107 1,115 0.93 0.06 0.35 1,155 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 12% 12% 3% 5% — 12%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.44 0.39 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.48 1,198 1,207 0.95 0.05 1.51 1,248 Mit. 1.44 0.39 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.48 1,044 1,052 0.92 0.05 1.51 1,092

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
14 / 92
%
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 13% 13% 3% 6% — 12%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.26 0.07 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 1.40 198 200 0.16 0.01 0.25 207 Mit. 0.26 0.07 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 1.40 173 174 0.15 0.01 0.25 181 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 13% 13% 3% 6% — 12%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 973 973 0.04 0.04 3.09 990 Area 1.04 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 333 333 0.05 0.01 — 336 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.54 0.38 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,318 1,327 0.95 0.05 3.36 1,370 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.49 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 918 918 0.05 0.05 0.08 934 Area 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 333 333 0.05 0.01 — 336 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
15 / 92
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.43 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,261 1,270 0.95 0.06 0.35 1,311 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.45 0.38 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 854 854 0.04 0.04 1.24 869 Area 0.99 < 0.005 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 333 333 0.05 0.01 — 336 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.44 0.39 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.48 1,198 1,207 0.95 0.05 1.51 1,248 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.08 0.07 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.20 144 Area 0.18 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 55.1 55.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 55.6 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 1.67 2.00 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.11 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.11 0.00 — 3.75 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 0.26 0.07 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 1.40 198 200 0.16 0.01 0.25 207

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.51 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 973 973 0.04 0.04 3.09 990 Area 1.04 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
16 / 92
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 178 178 0.03 < 0.005 — 180 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.54 0.38 4.66 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,164 1,172 0.92 0.05 3.36 1,214 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.49 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 918 918 0.05 0.05 0.08 934 Area 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 178 178 0.03 < 0.005 — 180 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.43 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 8.48 1,107 1,115 0.93 0.06 0.35 1,155 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.45 0.38 3.22 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 — 854 854 0.04 0.04 1.24 869 Area 0.99 < 0.005 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.32 1.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 178 178 0.03 < 0.005 — 180 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Total 1.44 0.39 3.68 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.80 0.01 0.20 0.21 8.48 1,044 1,052 0.92 0.05 1.51 1,092 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.08 0.07 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.20 144 Area 0.18 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 29.5 29.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 1.67 2.00 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.11

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
17 / 92
Waste — — — — — — — — — — 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.11 0.00 — 3.75 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 0.26 0.07 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 1.40 173 174 0.15 0.01 0.25 181

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 14.8 13.9 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,311 2,311 0.09 0.02 — 2,319 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.47 0.47 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.3 25.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
18 / 92
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.19 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.21 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 122 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.7 35.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 37.5 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
19 / 92
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.43 14.8 13.9 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,311 2,311 0.09 0.02 — 2,319 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.47 0.47 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 25.3 25.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.19 4.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.21 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
20 / 92
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 122 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.7 35.7 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 37.5 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.33 1.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.35 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.61 20.8 21.7 0.03 0.93 — 0.93 0.86 — 0.86 — 3,401 3,401 0.14 0.03 — 3,413 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 6.55 6.55 — 3.37 3.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
21 / 92
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.32 9.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.35 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.55 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.02 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
22 / 92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.61 20.8 21.7 0.03 0.93 — 0.93 0.86 — 0.86 — 3,401 3,401 0.14 0.03 — 3,413 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.56 2.56 — 1.31 1.31 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.32 9.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.35 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
23 / 92
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.55 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 221 221 0.01 0.01 0.02 224 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.62 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
24 / 92

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.39 23.2 22.6 0.04 1.00 — 1.00 0.92 — 0.92 — 4,655 4,655 0.19 0.04 — 4,671 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 8.15 8.15 — 3.54 3.54 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.24 2.35 2.29 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 472 472 0.02 < 0.005 — 473 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.83 0.83 — 0.36 0.36 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.43 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 78.1 78.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.4

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
25 / 92
———————0.070.07—0.150.15—————Dust
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 142 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.32 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 127 127 0.01 0.02 0.01 133 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
26 / 92
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.39 23.2 22.6 0.04 1.00 — 1.00 0.92 — 0.92 — 4,655 4,655 0.19 0.04 — 4,671 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.18 3.18 — 1.38 1.38 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.24 2.35 2.29 < 0.005 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 472 472 0.02 < 0.005 — 473 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.32 0.32 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.43 0.42 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 78.1 78.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 78.4 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.06 0.06 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
27 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 142 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.32 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 127 127 0.01 0.02 0.01 133 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 2.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.23

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.45 23.5 27.5 0.04 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 3,975 3,975 0.16 0.03 — 3,989 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
28 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.45 23.5 27.5 0.04 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 3,975 3,975 0.16 0.03 — 3,989 Onsite
truck

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

1.82 17.4 20.4 0.03 0.66 — 0.66 0.61 — 0.61 — 2,950 2,950 0.12 0.02 — 2,960 Onsite
truck

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

0.33 3.18 3.72 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 488 488 0.02 < 0.005 — 490 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 53.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 55.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 49.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 55.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
29 / 92
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.2 36.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 36.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 39.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 41.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.08 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 6.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.86 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.45 23.5 27.5 0.04 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 3,975 3,975 0.16 0.03 — 3,989 Onsite
truck

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

2.45 23.5 27.5 0.04 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 3,975 3,975 0.16 0.03 — 3,989 Onsite
truck

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

1.82 17.4 20.4 0.03 0.66 — 0.66 0.61 — 0.61 — 2,950 2,950 0.12 0.02 — 2,960

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
30 / 92

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Onsite truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.18 3.72 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 488 488 0.02 < 0.005 — 490 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 53.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 55.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.5 48.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 49.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.4 53.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 55.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 36.2 36.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 36.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 39.6 39.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 41.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.08 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.56 6.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.86 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
31 / 92

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.33 22.7 27.4 0.04 0.81 — 0.81 0.75 — 0.75 — 3,974 3,974 0.16 0.03 — 3,987 Onsite
truck

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

2.33 22.7 27.4 0.04 0.81 — 0.81 0.75 — 0.75 — 3,974 3,974 0.16 0.03 — 3,987 Onsite
truck

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

1.26 12.3 14.8 0.02 0.44 — 0.44 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,146 2,146 0.09 0.02 — 2,154 Onsite
truck

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

0.23 2.24 2.70 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
32 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.2 51.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 52.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 55.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.5 47.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 48.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 54.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 25.9 25.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 26.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.28 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.34 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.70 4.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.91 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
33 / 92
3,987—0.030.163,9743,974—0.75—0.750.81—0.810.0427.422.72.33Off-Road Equipment
Onsite
truck

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

2.33 22.7 27.4 0.04 0.81 — 0.81 0.75 — 0.75 — 3,974 3,974 0.16 0.03 — 3,987 Onsite
truck

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

1.26 12.3 14.8 0.02 0.44 — 0.44 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,146 2,146 0.09 0.02 — 2,154 Onsite
truck

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

0.23 2.24 2.70 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 355 355 0.01 < 0.005 — 357 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 51.2 51.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 52.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 55.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 47.5 47.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 48.2

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
34 / 92
Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 54.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 25.9 25.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 26.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 29.7 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.28 4.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.34 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.70 4.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.91 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.48 4.60 6.14 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 914 914 0.04 0.01 — 917 Paving 1.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
35 / 92

2.51—< 0.005< 0.0052.502.50—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.020.01< 0.005Off-Road Equipment
Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.42 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.0 85.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 86.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
36 / 92

3.12. Paving (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.48 4.60 6.14 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 914 914 0.04 0.01 — 917 Paving 1.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.50 2.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.51 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.42 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
37 / 92
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 85.0 85.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 86.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
38 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.27 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 42.0 42.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.2 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.96 6.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.98 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
39 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51 9.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01 3.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
40 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.27 0.36 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 42.0 42.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.2 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.68 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.96 6.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.98 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.12 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 10.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
41 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.51 9.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.01 3.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
42 / 92
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.60 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.60 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.33 9.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
43 / 92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

2.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
44 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.60 2.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.60 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.33 9.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
45 / 92

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

0.41 0.29 2.89 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 743 743 0.03 0.03 2.36 756 General
Office
Building

0.10 0.08 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 230 230 0.01 0.01 0.74 234 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.51 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 973 973 0.04 0.04 3.09 990 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.39 0.34 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 701 701 0.04 0.04 0.06 713 General
Office
Building

0.09 0.10 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 217 217 0.01 0.01 0.02 220 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
46 / 92
Total 0.49 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 918 918 0.05 0.05 0.08 934 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 0.01 0.16 116 General
Office
Building

0.01 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.07 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.20 144

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

0.41 0.29 2.89 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 743 743 0.03 0.03 2.36 756 General
Office
Building

0.10 0.08 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 230 230 0.01 0.01 0.74 234 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.51 0.38 3.73 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 973 973 0.04 0.04 3.09 990

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
47 / 92
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.39 0.34 2.83 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 701 701 0.04 0.04 0.06 713 General
Office
Building

0.09 0.10 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 217 217 0.01 0.01 0.02 220 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.49 0.44 3.63 0.01 0.01 0.88 0.88 0.01 0.22 0.23 — 918 918 0.05 0.05 0.08 934 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.06 0.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 0.01 0.16 116 General
Office
Building

0.01 0.01 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 27.3 27.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27.8 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.08 0.07 0.59 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.20 144

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
48 / 92
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 154 154 0.02 < 0.005 — 156
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 173 173 0.03 < 0.005 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.80 4.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 333 333 0.05 0.01 — 336
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 154 154 0.02 < 0.005 — 156
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 173 173 0.03 < 0.005 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.80 4.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 333 333 0.05 0.01 — 336
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 25.6 25.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.8

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
49 / 92
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.7 28.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 55.1 55.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 55.6

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 173 173 0.03 < 0.005 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.80 4.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 178 178 0.03 < 0.005 — 180
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
50 / 92
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 173 173 0.03 < 0.005 — 175
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.80 4.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 178 178 0.03 < 0.005 — 180
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 28.7 28.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 29.5 29.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.8

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
51 / 92

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.00General Office
Building
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
52 / 92

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.00Other Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
53 / 92
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 General
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
54 / 92
Landscap
Equipment

0.09 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total 1.04 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 Total 0.18 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
55 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.09 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Total 1.04 0.01 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.85 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consume
r
Products

0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
56 / 92

0.22—< 0.005< 0.0050.220.22—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.08< 0.0050.01Landscap e
Total 0.18 < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.95 8.08 9.03 0.10 < 0.005 — 12.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 1.99 3.05 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.54
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.95 8.08 9.03 0.10 < 0.005 — 12.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 1.99 3.05 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.54

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
57 / 92
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 1.34 1.50 0.02 < 0.005 — 2.03
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.08
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 1.67 2.00 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.11

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.95 8.08 9.03 0.10 < 0.005 — 12.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 1.99 3.05 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.54
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
58 / 92
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.95 8.08 9.03 0.10 < 0.005 — 12.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.06 1.99 3.05 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.54
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.01 10.1 12.1 0.21 0.01 — 18.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.16 1.34 1.50 0.02 < 0.005 — 2.03
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.17 0.33 0.50 0.02 < 0.005 — 1.08
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.33 1.67 2.00 0.03 < 0.005 — 3.11

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
59 / 92

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 4.91 0.00 4.91 0.49 0.00 — 17.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.55 0.00 1.55 0.16 0.00 — 5.44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 4.91 0.00 4.91 0.49 0.00 — 17.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.55 0.00 1.55 0.16 0.00 — 5.44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
60 / 92
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.85
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.03 0.00 — 0.90
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.11 0.00 — 3.75

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 4.91 0.00 4.91 0.49 0.00 — 17.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.55 0.00 1.55 0.16 0.00 — 5.44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
61 / 92
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 4.91 0.00 4.91 0.49 0.00 — 17.2
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 1.55 0.00 1.55 0.16 0.00 — 5.44
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.47 0.00 6.47 0.65 0.00 — 22.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — 0.81 0.00 0.81 0.08 0.00 — 2.85
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.03 0.00 — 0.90
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.07 0.00 1.07 0.11 0.00 — 3.75

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
62 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
63 / 92
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.27 0.27
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
General
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
64 / 92
Equipme
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
65 / 92

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

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

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
66 / 92

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

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

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
67 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
68 / 92
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
69 / 92
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
70 / 92
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
71 / 92
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2025 1/4/2025 6.00 4.00 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/5/2025 1/6/2025 6.00 1.00 — Grading Grading 1/7/2025 2/18/2025 6.00 37.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 2/19/2025 8/18/2026 6.00 468 — Paving Paving 8/19/2026 8/19/2026 6.00 1.00 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/20/2026 2/19/2027 6.00 158 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
72 / 92
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Demolition Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
73 / 92

0.3784.06.003.00Tier 3DieselBuilding Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes
Building Construction Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Building Construction Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 16.0 0.38 Building Construction Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Building Construction Pressure Washers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.30 Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Demolition Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
74 / 92
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh Diesel Tier 3 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Site Preparation Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Site Preparation Excavators Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 150 0.36 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 423 0.48
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 3 3.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Building Construction Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Building Construction Air Compressors Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 16.0 0.38 Building Construction Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Building Construction Pressure Washers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.30

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
75 / 92
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.00 2.10 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 27.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 14.2 2.10 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
76 / 92
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 6.03 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 1.21 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 4.00 2.10 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 27.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
77 / 92
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 14.2 2.10 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 6.03 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 2.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 1.21 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
78 / 92
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 74,190 24,730 16,547 5,516 1,635

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,877 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 4,200 74.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.15 0%
General Office Building 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.22 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.40 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
79 / 92
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
132 134 120 47,662 937 947 849 338,053
General Office
Building

30.2 6.85 2.17 8,342 296 67.1 21.3 81,767
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Single Family
Housing
132 134 120 47,662 937 947 849 338,053
General Office
Building

30.2 6.85 2.17 8,342 296 67.1 21.3 81,767
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
80 / 92

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 14
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 14
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
81 / 92

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
74189.925 24,730 16,547 5,516 1,635

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

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 276,244 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
General Office Building 310,296 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 8,586 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
82 / 92
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
General Office Building 310,296 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 8,586 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 497,152 2,277,033
General Office Building 550,975 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 497,152 2,277,033
General Office Building 550,975 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
83 / 92
Single Family Housing 9.12 —
General Office Building 2.88 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 9.12 —
General Office Building 2.88 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
84 / 92
Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
General Office Building Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
85 / 92

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
86 / 92

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 17.9 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 23.4 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
87 / 92
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
88 / 92
AQ-Ozone 26.7
AQ-PM 20.0
AQ-DPM 80.7
Drinking Water 44.8
Lead Risk Housing 27.3
Pesticides 68.1
Toxic Releases 33.7
Traffic 62.3
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 50.3
Groundwater 74.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 79.4
Impaired Water Bodies 12.5
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 20.2
Cardio-vascular 15.1
Low Birth Weights 64.5
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 18.8
Housing 76.9
Linguistic 42.1
Poverty 40.6
Unemployment 15.8

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
89 / 92
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 71.46156807
Employed 94.72603619
Median HI 79.53291415
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 77.17182086
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 47.91479533
Transportation —
Auto Access 21.39099192
Active commuting 84.66572565
Social —
2-parent households 63.19774156
Voting 68.80533812
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 29.11587322
Park access 42.48684717
Retail density 72.75760298
Supermarket access 41.99923008
Tree canopy 76.88951623
Housing —
Homeownership 27.52470166
Housing habitability 19.62017195
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 73.77133325 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 34.377005
Uncrowded housing 64.30129603

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
90 / 92
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 51.84139612
Arthritis 33.8
Asthma ER Admissions 77.2
High Blood Pressure 80.7
Cancer (excluding skin) 16.1
Asthma 65.7
Coronary Heart Disease 54.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 62.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 82.1
Life Expectancy at Birth 91.5
Cognitively Disabled 48.3
Physically Disabled 62.2
Heart Attack ER Admissions 50.6
Mental Health Not Good 76.1
Chronic Kidney Disease 64.9
Obesity 83.0
Pedestrian Injuries 84.7
Physical Health Not Good 72.6
Stroke 58.2
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 47.1
Current Smoker 75.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 69.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
91 / 92
Children 37.8
Elderly 33.4
English Speaking 64.7
Foreign-born 50.4
Outdoor Workers 68.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 55.8
Traffic Density 70.7
Traffic Access 64.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 21.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 65.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 38.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 77.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

Barone’s project Detailed Report, 10/4/2023
92 / 92
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on applicant provided information
Construction: Construction Phases Based on applicant provided information Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on applicant provided information Construction: Trips and VMT Based on appicant provided information. Construction debris would be exported to Pleasanton Landfill
Construction: Architectural Coatings Based on BAAQMD Reg 8 Rule 3 Operations: Hearths No fireplaces according to the applicant Operations: Architectural Coatings Based on BAAQMD Reg 8 Rule 3 Operations: Energy Use The project would not include natural gas, therefore it is assumed eletricity would subsitute estimated energy consumption.

Characteristics: Project Details Based on aerial Google Earth images

Appendix B
Historic Resources Evaluation

treanorhl.com

TREANORHL

4 75-493 ST. JOHN STREET, PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA

HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION

DRAFT
FEBRUARY 25, 2021

treanorhl.com
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................1

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................1

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................1 475 St. John Street (APN 94-114-7) ................................................................................................................2 493 St. John Street (APN 94-114-8) ................................................................................................................5

5. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE .................................................................................................................................8

6. SITE HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................8

7. HISTORIC CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................... 14

8. ARCHITECT/BUILDER .................................................................................................................................. 16

9. OWNERSHIP/OCCUPANCY HISTORY ........................................................................................................ 16

10. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................... 17 National Register of Historic Places Criteria ................................................................................................ 17 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria ...................................................................................... 18 Local Eligibility ............................................................................................................................................. 19

11. SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 19 Current Historic Status ................................................................................................................................. 19 475 St. John Street (APN 94-114-7) ............................................................................................................. 19 493 St. John Street (APN 94-114-8) ............................................................................................................. 20

12. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................... 23

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com

1. INTRODUCTION
Robson Homes, LLC has requested TreanorHL’s assistance in assessing two parcels located on St. John Street in Pleasanton (APNs 94-114-7 and 94-114-8). These parcels have not previously been identified on any state or national historic resources inventory. According to the Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025 (adopted July 2009), both parcels are located within the Downtown Commercial Center which was identified as a “heritage neighborhood.” The 493 St. John Street property was also identified as a historic structure in the Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025.1 However, neither the most recent Downtown Specific Plan (adopted August 2019), Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement (March 2015), nor Pleasanton Limited Scope Historic Resource Survey (August 2015) identify the parcels at 475 and 493 St. John Street as historic.

The following report provides an evaluation of the subject properties’ potential eligibility to be individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

Pleasanton does not maintain any local criteria for evaluation and relies on the CRHR criteria for determining eligibility of historic resources.

2. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
While both properties were found to have historic significance under at least one criterion, neither were found to possess sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the state or national register. Upon completion of the survey and archival work, the property at 475 St. John Street in Pleasanton does not appear individually eligible for the NRHP or CRHR as it was not found to possess sufficient integrity under criterion A/1 for its period of significance. The 493 St. John Street property also does not appear individually eligible for the NRHP or CRHR as it was not found to possess sufficient integrity under criteria A/1 and C/3 for its period of significance.

3. METHODOLOGY
TreanorHL conducted a site visit on January 14, 2021 to evaluate the existing conditions, historic features, and architectural significance of the properties. Available building permits were obtained from the City of Pleasanton Permit Center. Due to the Covid-19 shelter-in-place order, TreanorHL was not able to conduct in-person research at local libraries or archives. In order to evaluate the historic significance of the properties, available online research was completed including consultation of local city directories, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historical aerials and photographs, local newspapers, and various other sources from online repositories. Also, the staff at Pleasanton’s Museum on Main provided information on the two properties that included scans and photographs of images, maps, and newspaper articles housed in the museum’s archives. TreanorHL contacted the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); however, no records were found regarding the properties.

4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject properties are in downtown Pleasanton. Located on the southern side of the block roughly bounded by St. John Street to the south, Main Street to the east, Arroyo del Valle to the north, and the railroad tracks to the west, the subject parcels are close to the commercial center of Pleasanton which lies to the east and south.

Low-rise residential buildings, mostly single-family houses, appear to the west.

1 The City of Pleasanton, Pleasanton General Plan 2005-2025 (adopted July 21, 2009), pages 7-13 to 7-16.

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 2

Figure 1. The subject properties at 475 and 493 St. John Street, outlined in red (Google Earth, imagery date June 2019).

475 St. John Street (APN 94-114-7)
The main building on the site, the restaurant, is located nearest St. John Street and has had numerous additions over the years. The additions almost completely surround the original structure which can be identified by the truncated hip roof. Behind the restaurant structure is a large, paved patio area surrounded by several accessory structures.

Constructed pre-1888 this one-story over partial basement, restaurant building is complex in plan. The wood- frame structure has horizontal wood siding with simple stucco panels present at the front and east side additions.

A small portion of the front façade, around the entry door also features stucco cladding. The complex roof structure includes a truncated hip section with gable end roofs projecting from the hip along with several flat and shed roof sections. Asphalt shingles clad the sloped roof sections while roll-asphalt roofing clads the flat sections. The primary window type is vinyl-sash, six-over-six, single-hung. Canvas awnings shelter some of the windows near the front of the building. Concrete steps, flanked by ornate metal railings, lead up to the entry door. The multi-lite wood door is sheltered by a canvas awning. A dining patio and ramp stand to the northwest of the restaurant. The ramp accesses an entry off the patio. An interior brick chimney stack is visible at the east side of the structure. Notable features include the flat roof additions at the southwest corner of the building, the truncated hip roof of the original structure and the numerous other additions. Alterations to the restaurant include window replacements and numerous small additions off every façade. The overall condition of the restaurant is good.

The street facing (south) façade of the restaurant features a raised entry, accessed by concrete steps. The entry door and steps are located to the west side of the structure and are flanked by a single window to the west and a grouping of five windows to the east. A raised gable roof interrupts the flat roof of the enclosed porch addition and helps identifying the entrance. The restaurant’s name “Barone’s” is painted on the gable end. A canvas awning shelters the multi-lite wood door, while another canvas awning wraps the southeast corner of the building and protects the windows. A dining patio accessed by a wood ramp is west of the building. Currently N

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 3
the patio and ramp are covered by a series of awnings and tents. A flat roof addition is set back from the main façade and features similar windows. Below each window on the main façade is a simple stucco panel surrounded by flat wood trim.

The east façade features a grouping of three multi-lite vinyl-sash windows at the southernmost enclosed porch addition and a grouping of nine identical windows at the side addition. Below the windows at the southernmost enclosed porch addition are stucco clad panels surrounded by flat wood trim, while the grouping of nine windows has panels that feature horizontal wood siding that match the rest of the cladding on this façade. Wood lattice hides the foundation and raised floor framing of the addition on this side of the structure. North of the addition is a deck. A shed roof addition, constructed off the back of the original house, features two openings that are currently covered with metal panels. A hip roof addition toward the north end of the elevation has a single, multi-panel door at the patio level. A small, shed roof addition adorns the southern end of this addition.

From the patio wooden stairs lead up to a single door which accesses the shed roof addition at the most northern end of the structure. Both additions are clad in horizontal wood siding and feature simple wood trim at openings.

The north façade features numerous additions. The east side addition has a pair of multi-lite wood doors opening onto a raised deck. The shed roof addition features a single opening that is currently covered. A smaller shed roof addition has no openings but features a giant “B” for Barone’s painted on the wood siding while the rear addition with a hip roof is centered on this façade. The shed roof addition off the hip roof section has no openings on this side.

The west façade of the building features a hip roof addition at the southern end. This addition has a multi-lite fixed vinyl-sash window. The roof of the addition is set below the roofline of the original structure. The northern side of the hip roof addition has a single-hung multi-lite vinyl-sash window. A flat roof addition, with a single door, is located at the southern end of the addition while a metal electrical enclosure is located at the northern end. The northwest corner of the original structure is visible. A single opening on the north façade of the original structure has been covered with a piece of wood. Off the rear gable end section of the building is an addition constructed of concrete masonry units. This addition is a single-story and is enclosed with wood lattice on the southern end, where a paneled door provides access to the space. Mechanical units are housed on the flat roof.

Another flat roof addition is located near the north end of the building and features a mix of cladding materials – vertical siding, vinyl panels and wood lattice. The northern most shed roof addition is raised above the ground and accessed by wood stairs. A single door punctuates the horizontal cladding material.

Accessory Structures
S
everal accessory structures are located north of the restaurant. A single-story, gable roof building is located northwest of the restaurant. Four other single-story structures flank the paved patio and dining area. These structures are open on one side and serve as outdoor bars. All structures are clad in horizontal vinyl planks. All accessory buildings were added to the site over the last two decades and are in good condition.

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 4

Figure 2. Looking north from St. John Street, the south façade of the main building at 475 St. John Street.

Figure 3. The south and east façades.

Figure 4. The rear (north) façade.

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 5

Figures 5 and 6. Two of the accessory structures on the subject parcel.

493 St. John Street (APN 94-114-8)
The large deep lot features a main house (nearest to St. John Street), a cottage to the northwest of the house, and three accessory buildings in the rear yard. Behind the gated rear yard is a large, paved parking lot. This parking area serves the restaurant to the east. Constructed prior to 1888, this two-story, over partial basement house is irregular in plan. The vernacular wood-frame structure has horizontal wood siding and a steeply pitched, asphalt shingle-clad, cross-gable roof with dormers featuring a shed and gable roofs. The primary window type is vinyl-sash, nine-over-nine, single-hung. Decorative shutters flank many of the windows. A full-width entry porch with columns adorns the front (south) façade with a connecting deck wrapping around to the west side of the structure. A modest gable roof projection supported by round columns shelters the main entrance which consists of a paneled wood door and sidelights. The wood railing with turned balusters at the porch is identical to the railing at the second-floor deck. Notable features include the front porch, the enclosed eaves, the cornice returns at the eaves, the two interior chimney stacks, and the wood railings. Alterations to the main house include window replacement, relocation of the main entrance door, siding replacement, the installation of new railings and columns at the front façade, and numerous additions. A detached one-story, wood-frame cottage stands northwest of the main house. Three other detached structures are located behind the main house as well.

Located around a paved parking area these prefabricated structures serve as a gym space, storage, and a detached garage. The overall condition of the main house, cottage and accessory structures is good.

Main House
T
he entrance to the house is located to the west end of the street facing façade of the main house. The enclosed entrance takes up a small portion of the original porch and projects from the original façade of the house. East of the entry are three windows with wide trim and a decorative crosshead. Each window is flanked by shutters.

Round columns support the overhang at the porch area. Centered on the second floor is a wide shed roof dormer. A paired multi-lite French door provides access to the deck. A single, multi-lite window stands to each side of the door.

T
wo sets of paired windows are visible on the east façade under the gable end at the first floor. North of these windows are three additional openings – two single-hung and one slider. Two gable end dormers punctuate the cross-gable roof at the north side of this façade. A single-hung window and a decorative metal railing give interest to each dormer. All single-hung windows and surrounds match the windows on the south façade.

The dominant feature of the north façade is the second floor balcony supported by round columns. The balcony shelters the rear entrance which is slightly off center on the first floor. A single French door accesses the balcony.

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 6
The balcony railing matches the railings on the front of the building. A single-hung window is east of the rear entry door.

A bay window, multi-lite door and single-hung window adorn the first floor of the west side of the building. At the second floor a single gable end dormer has a pair of windows. Just north of the dormer is a wood clad interior chimney stack. A paired French door with a multi-lite transom is located at the south end of the first floor under the gable end. Located directly below the ridge of the gable end at the second floor is a single-hung window. An uncovered wood deck spans most of this elevation and is connected to the entry porch. Vertical wood siding clads the railing around the deck perimeter.

Figure 7. Looking northwest from St. John Street, the south (front) and east façades of the main house at 493 St. John Street.

Figure 8. The front (south) façade.

Project Name: 475-493 St. John St. HRE Pleasanton
Historic Resources Evaluation - DRAFT

Project No: HP0932.2101.00
February 25, 2021

treanorhl.com 7

Figures 9 and 10. Left, the partial west façade, and right, the rear façade.

Cottage
C
onstructed prior to 1943, this one-story, vernacular cottage is L-shaped in plan. The wood-frame building has horizontal wood siding and an asphalt shingle-clad, gable roof with a cross-gable addition to the north. Another small gable roof addition is off the rear (north) side of the structure. The raised foundation is hidden behind vertical wood cladding. The primary window types are wood-sash, one-over-one, double-hung and fixed wood- sash. Shutters flank all windows. An almost full-width porch with square wood supports shelters the main entrance, which consists of a wood panel door. The entrance door is centered on the main (south) façade with a single window to each side. The east façade has three single windows and a set of paired windows, as well as a paneled door accessed by wood stairs and a ramp. The north façade has a window centered on the small rear gable end addition, while a pair of fixed windows and a flush door are present on the cross-gable portion of the building. Wood stairs access this door. A pair of fixed windows and two single-hung windows punctuate the west façade. Notable features include the entry porch, the wood brackets at the eaves, the exposed rafter tails, the decorative shutters, and the wide flat trim at windows. Alterations to the cottage are minimal and limited to additions off the rear (north) side of the structure.

Figures 11 and 12. Left, the front (south) façade of the cottage; right, the east façade of the cottage.

Accessory Structures
T
hree small, prefabricated structures are in the north east corner of the yard around a paved parking area. These accessory buildings were added to the site over the last five years. The single-story structures have metal-clad hipped and flat roofs as well as vinyl horizontal siding. The western most building has a single door on the west façade, the centrally located structure has a garage door on the southern façade, while the eastern most unit has a mix of window and door openings on three sides. All accessory buildings are in good condition.