Santa Barbara City Council
September 23, 2025

Attachments:

1. Recorded Development Agreement, by the City of Santa Barbara, dated

7.6.2017.

Item III.B Page 39 of 388
RESOLUTION NO. 94-030

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITV OF SANTA

BARBARA CONCURRING WITH THE DECISION BY THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVING LOCALCOASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 1-93 REGARDING AMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 (PARK PLAZA) WITH
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS AND, FURTHER, AMENDINGSAID SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCLUDE SAID MODIFICATIONSWHEREAS, on June 18, 1993, the Environmental Review Committee certified the Waterfront Park, Hotel and Youth Hostel Final Environmental Impact Report as complete, accurate and a good faith effort toward full disclosure and as being reflective of the independent judgement of the City of Santa Barbara under the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held the required noticed public hearings and took public input on an application to amend the Specific Plan and the Applicants were present; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 4-3 decision, voted to recommend to the City Council that the subject Specific Plan Amendment be approved; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 1993, the City Council set a date for a public hearing on the Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing in order to hear public input on the Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on September 21, 1993, the City Council adopted an Amendment to Specific Plan No. 1 (Park Plaza), contingent upon California Coastal Commission certification of the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan Amendment, and making the necessary environmental. Local Coastal Plan and General Plan findings; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 1993, the City of Santa Barbara submitted a request to the California Coastal Commission for certification of an Amendment to Specific Plan No. 1 (Park Plaza); and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission accepted said request; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 1994, the California Coastal Commission held a properly noticed public hearing in order to hear public testimony on the Local Coastal ProgramAmendment; and

EXHIBIT D Item III.B Page 40 of 388
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission certified the Local Coastal Program amendment, subject to modifications and concurrence with those modifications by the City of Santa Barbara; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 1994, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing and took public input on an application to amend the Specific Plan to include ttie modifications requested by the California Coastal Commission and the Applicants were present; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 decision, voted to recommend to the City Council that the subject Specific Plan Amendment be approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara concurs with the modifications made to Specific Plan No. 1 (Park Plaza) as requested by the California Coastal Commission and hereby amends Specific Plan No. 1 as necessary to include said modifications as shown in Exhibit 1, the Amended Specific Plan No. 1, making the following findings and determinations:

A. Environmental Findings:

1. 2.

3. The City Council has read and considered the Waterfront Park, Hotel and YouthHostel EIR (ENV92-0107) and has determined that it is reHective of the independent judgement of the City of Santa Barbara under the California Environmental Quality Act.The Waterfront Park, Hotel and Youth Hostel EIR identifies signfficant unavoidable parking, air quality, noise and vibration and visual resources impacts. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified which could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Changes and/or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the following significant effects identified m the EIR:
long term air quality impacts, short and long term traffic and noise impacts, long term visual resources impacts, biological resources impacts, risk of upset impacts and hazardous materials impacts, as follows:a.
b.

Construction-related traffic and parking impacts will be mitigated by requiring a truck routing plan to be prepared and implemented which includes avoidance of impacted intersections and peak traffic hours and reduction of conflicts between trucks and other traffic through the provision of a towing lane. In addition, a construction parking plan will be required.

Operational traffic impacts will be mitigated by requiring that the Carpinteria streetaccess be limited to right turns only, that the median be redesigned on Salsipuedes Street and that Salsipuedes Street be extended across the railroad tracks, that atraffic signal be installed at the intersection of Cabrillo Boulevard and U.S.

Item III.B Page 41 of 388
c.
d.f.
&
h.

1. k.

Highway 101 and that a Transportation Demand System be submitted, approved and implemented.Operational parking impacts for the park will be mitigated in the long term by the extension of Garden Street and the resulting expansion and redesign of the SantaBarbara Street public parking lot.

Operational parking impacts for the hotel will be mitigated by the provision of 100additional parking spaces either in the Red Lion Resort parking lot or in a lotadjacent to the proposed hotel immediately north of the railroad tracks.

Construction-related noise and vibration impacts will be mitigated by therequirement that all construction equipment is required to be well maintained withfunctional mufflers, construction activity is limited to weekdays between 8 AM and5 PM and if a method other than a pile-supported method is used.Long Term noise impacts on the park, hotel and hostel will be mitigated by theconstruction of an acoustical barrier along the northerly edge of the park, the useof closed, acoustically upgraded window assemblies and ventilation for all hotel andhostel windows and because the hostel will not include any balcony along thenortherly side of the building.Long term visual impacts on views will be mitigated by protecting all existing viewsof the Riviera and mountains except for those blocked by the proposed hotel andby prohibiting windrowing of trees.

Impacts on the cliff aster, a sensitive plant species will be mitigated by including the cliff aster in the landscape plan along the northerly edge of the project where Monterey shale is present.Impacts on the project resulting from train derailment will be mitigated by requiring the preparation and implementation of an emergency response plan,posting safety procedures and evacuation routes throughout the development, constructing buildings of fire retardant materials and installing sprinkler systems, byrequiring that the rear wall of the fire lane behind the proposed hotel beconstructed to provide optimum damage resistance and requiring that the projectcomply with all risk of upset provisions of the Specific Plan.

Impacts on the project related to contamination of the park and hotel site and thearea of the Salsipuedes Street extension will be mitigated by completing andimplementing a Phase II site remediation plan.Impacts on the project related to storage of hazardous materials on site will bemitigated by requiring that all hazardous materials be stored in compliance with local. State and Federal regulations.

Page3of28
Item III.B Page 42 of 388

4. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR for the following reasons:

The other sites considered in the EIR are not available to the applicants and have the potential for significant environmental impacts. a. c.d.b. The Environmentally Superior Alternative will not allow for the provision of annual maintenance funding by the applicant to provide for a more extensive and active park with more facilities available to both residents of and visitors to Santa Barbara.The Environmentally Superior Alternative would not provide the additional 0.4acres of park space proposed by the applicant with development of the hotel.The Environmentally Superior Alternative would not lead to the construction of the hostel, but would only provide the land and funds for engineering, design andpermit processing. This would be less consistent with the Local Coastal Plan inthat the lower income-serving visitor use would not be available at the same timethe development is completed. In addition, the hostel size will be increased from75 to 100 beds if the hotel is built. e. The Environmentally Superior Alternative may have a negative impact on other existing visitor-serving retail and restaurant businesses whereas the hotel may generate business for existing businesses.
f. The hotel will provide substantially greater tax revenues to the City than would the Environmentally Superior Alternative. In a time of budget deficiencies, this is an important consideration, especially when coupled with the provision and development of a significant park space.

B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidableenvironmental impacts and has concluded that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant short term parking impact for the park, the short term air quality impacfcs, the short and long term noise impacts and the short term visual resources impacts sufficiently to justify approval of the project. The City Council makes the following Statements of Overriding Considerations which support approval of the project notwithstanding theidentified impacts that are not mitigated:

1. Salsipuedes Street will be extended across the railroad tracks and paid for by the hotel developer, the Redevelopment Agency, the City, ISTEA funds and other futuredevelopers in the area, which will not only mitigate this and other projects' impacts on the Milpas Street/U.S. 101 intersections, but will also improve overall traffic circulation in the area.

Item III.B Page 43 of 388

2. 3.

4. 5.6.7.

8.9. 10.

The Cabrillo Boulevard/LLS. 101 intersection will be signalized and paid for by the hotel developer and the Redevelopment Agency, which will not only mitigate this andother projects' impacts on this intersection, but will improve overall traffic circulation in the area until such time as the California Department of Transportation constructspermanent improvements.A total of 4.943^acres of park land will be deeded to the City of Santa Barbara by the Parker Family Trust and park maintenance funds will provided at the rate of $125,000per year (adjusted annually) for 35 years.

A 100 bed youth hostel will be constructed by the Parker Family Trust or its successor in interest, which will provide low cost, visitor-serving lodging in the Waterfront Area.

Without this project, only the land would be dedicated and funds set aside for design,engineering and permit processing.

The hotel and, to a lesser degree, the youth hostel will directly generate transientoccupancy tax revenues for the City of Santa Barbara and the hotel will directlygenerate property tax revenues.

Guests of the hotel and the youth hostel will spend money in the City and the surrounding community which will indirectly generate additional sales tax and otherrevenue, while not creating substantial new retail facilities that will compete with otherexisting local businesses.The property tax revenues generated by the hotel may allow the Redevelopment Agency to generate funds to pay for the costs of developing a high quality park.

The applicant has agreed to provide $90,000 to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District to either retrofit three existing buses to low emission fuels or tocontribute funding to the matching funds provided by the APCD to meet ISTEAfunding to purchase five new buses for the Clean Air Express Commuter Service or toprovide needed operating funds. In addition, the hotel wilt be required to participate in any shuttle pass program developed in cooperation with the Metropolitan transit District for the electric shuttle. This will result in mitigating the long term air quality impacts from nitrogen oxide and reactive organic gas emissions and short term air quality impacts from nitrogen oxide emissions to acceptable levels. In addition, theprovision of additional Clean Air Express Commuter Service buses will reduce the amount of traffic in the South Coast area.

The proposed project will provide an important expansion and completion of the parkspace in the Waterfront Area and will provide an attractive hotel that will be an important focal point along Cabrillo Boulevard.The project will complete a pedestrian linkage along the north side of Cabrillo Boulevard through the development of the park and the completion of a pedestriansidewalk in front of the Cabrillo Ball Field between Calle Puerto Vallarta and Milpas

Item III.B Page 44 of 388

11. Street. This pedestrian linkage will also help to mitigate the short term parking impactby improving access to the park area from other parts of the Waterfront'Area park'system.The project will provide a safe pedestrian crossing across Cabrillo Boulevard at Carpinteria Street through the provision of a signalized crosswalk or pedestrian overcrossing or undercrossing.

12. The project will provide traffic mitigation above and beyond the impact generated by the project and will pay for all of the costs in the case of the Cabrillo/uTs. 101 intersection signalization and a substantial portion of the local costs in the case of the Salsipuedes Street extension. In addition, the hotel will participate in any shuttle passprogram developed to encourage tourists, especially hotel guests, to use the shuttle.

C. Findings for the Specific Plan Amendment:

The Amendment to Specific Plan #1 will add land to the Specific Plan area which will bedesignated for park purposes, will allow the construction of a hotel on Parcel B, will reduce the required building setback along Salsipuedes Street and the setback of certain park- related facilities on Cabrillo Boulevard, will require the construction of a youth hostel and will make other minor and miscellaneous changes. This amendment is consistent with boththe General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan in that the site is zoned and designated for both Hotel and Related Commerce and Park and Recreation uses. The Amendment does not result in a substantial increase in intensity of development for the property because the total number of peak hour trips allowed for Parcels A, B and C does not increase.With respect to Section 1507 of the City Charter, the amendment, with the proposed projectconditions, does not allow the development to exceed air quality, traffic, water or wastewater treatment capacity.

The Specific Plan is consistent with and carries out the purposes of all applicable aspects ofthe General Plan including the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, the 1985Housing Element Update, the Conservation Element, the Noise Element, the Seismic Safety and Safety Element, the Open Space Element and the Parks and Recreation Element. The discussion of the project's consistency is found in the Waterfront Park, Hotel and YouthHostel Final EIR (ENV92-0107), pages 29 through 39, and is incorporated herein byreference.

In addition, these amendments to Specific Plan No. 1 are consistent with the provisions of the Local Coastal Plan, the Coastal Act and all applicable guidelines, as follows:

1. Recreation Policies 3. 1 and 3.2 will be met because the land used for park purposes will be zoned PR, Park and Recreation, and all of the park land will be dedicated in fee tothe City of Santa Barbara.

Item III.B Page 45 of 388

3. 4.

2. Recreation Policies 33 and 3.4 will be met because the new park land provided will exceed the demand generated by the proposed project and the park land will includepedestrian walkways, bike facilities and other amenities to limit circulation impacts, as well as the extension of Salsipuedes Street across the railroad tracks.

Recreation Policies 3.6 and 3.13 will be met by the provision of additional parking and park land north of Cabrillo Boulevard that is signed to clearly indicate that it is a public park.Recreation Policy 3.7 will be met because the Parks and Recreation Department will bein charge of scheduling events in this park area as they are for other park areas in theWaterfront Area and will continue to coordinate events so that traffic and circulationcongestion will not increase.

5. Recreation Policy 3.8 will be met because the City has considered the relocation of the Arts and Crafts Show and has concluded that it is not appropriate at this time.

6. Visitor-Serving Policy 4.1 has been met because the property is zoned HRC-2, Hotel and Related Commerce 2.

7. Visitor-Serving Policy 4.2 will be met because the Historic Landmarks Commission has and will continue to review the project for compatible architertural design, the project will be consistent with the Visual Quality policies, as discussed below, and will provide public view corridors, open spaces and pedestrisui walkways and facilities. The hotelprovides adequate off-street parking to meet its demand, as will the park when the Garden Street extension is completed.

Visitor-Serving Policy 4.4 will be met because the proposed hotel will provide a highend luxury hotel not previously available in Santa Barbara and construction of the youth hostel will provide lodging facilities for lower income visitors rather than providing landand funding for design, engineering and permit processing as presently required under approval of the original Specific Plan and the Red Lion. In addition, 0.4 acres ofadditional park land -will be dedicated and the park will be fully improved.

Visitor-Serving Policy 4.6 has been met due to the existence of the Specific Plan that addresses the opportunities and issues raised by the site. Approval of the hotel and park will not affect the requirement that priority uses be visitor-serving and recreational in nature.

10. Housing Policy 5.5 will be met because the Redevelopment Agency will use at least 20% of the tax increment monies accruing from this property for housing for persponsof low and moderate income.

11. Water and Marine Environments Policies 6. 1, 6.8 and 6.9 will be met because the riparian and wetlands habitats associated with Laguna Channel will be protected,restored and expanded by the proposed project.

8.9. Item III.B Page 46 of 388

12. Water and Marine Environments Policy 6.10 will be met because native vegetation will be used as a setback and buffer between the creek banks and any proposed development.

13. Water and Marine Environments Policy 6.11 will be met because there will be no channelization or other substantial alteration of Laguna Channel.

14. Visual Quality Policy 9.1 will be met because existing views to, from and along the coastal area will be protected through the dedication of land for parks and open space and the protection of the existing corridors therein and the setbacks of the hotel's'first, second and third stories from Cabrillo Boulevard.

15. Visual Quality Policies 93 and 9S will be met because all existing and proposed utilities will be undergrounded and all parking facilities will be screened from public view as recommended by the Scenic Highways Element.

16. Public Services Policy 11.2 will not apply to this project because the Crosstown Freeway improvements have been completed.

17. Public Services Policies 11.5 and 11.7 will be met in the long-term because all of the parking required to meet the parking demands for both the park and the hotel will beprovided and the parking spaces lost within the Carpinteria Street right-of-way will be replaced.

18. Public Services Policy 11. 11 will be met because Transportation Demand Management measures will be required for hotel employees and shuttle services to and from the airport and train station will be provided for guests.

19. Public Services Policy 11.15 will be met because pedestrian movement and safety will be provided for in the circulation pattern of the proposed park and access to the beach willbe provided by a safe pedestrian crossing at Carpinteria Street. In addition, a continuous pedestrian walkway will be provided along the north side of Cabrillo Boulevard due to the pedestrian access provided on the project site and along thefrontage of Cabrillo Ball Field between Calle Puerta Vallarta and Milpas Street.

20. Land Use Policy 12.1 will not apply to this project because the Crosstown Freeway improvements have been completed.

21. Land Use Policy 12.2 will be met because this project will contribute to the Openness, Lack of Congestion, Naturalness and Rhythm of the Waterfront Area.

Exhibit 1: Amended Specific Plan No. 1 (Park Plaza)
Adopted March 22, 1994
PageS of 28
Item III.B Page 47 of 388
EXHIBIT 1
AUTHORITy AND CONDITIONS FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1 PARK PLAZA
(Amended March 22, 1994)
I. Authority for Specific Plan No. 1
This amended Specific Plan No. 1 is approved in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65452 of the State of California Government Code.

ILBoundsu-y of Specific Plan No. 1
The City Council of the City of Santa Barbara hereby establishes Specific Plan No. 1, applicable to that area described in the attached legal description (Exhibit A) and the area shown on the map (Exhibit B), shown as Parcel A, Parcel B, Parcel C, Salsipuedes Street,Carpinteria Street, Milpas Street, Calle Puerto Vallarta and Cabrillo Boulevard and Cityowned land between Parcel A and Cabrillo Boulevard.

III. Intent and Purpose
The intent and purpose of Specific Plan No. 1 is to ensure the orderly development of the area described herein, in accordance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan of theCity of Santa Barbara. The Specific Plan is intended to provide regulatory controls thatconform to the General Plan elements, Local Coastal Plan, and mitigation measures thatminimize any adverse environmental impacts as outlined in the Final Environmental ImpactReport for the Waterfront Park and Hotel project.

FV Procedures
Any and all future development of the property shall conform to the provisions of Specific Plan No. 1. No further development shall be permitted without the following:A. Development Plan review and approval by the Planning Commission. Said approval, disapproval, or conditional approval shall follow the same procedures established forDevelopment Plan Approval and Coastal Development Permits in accordance with Municipal Code Title 28 (the Zoning Ordinance).

B. Architectural Review and approval by the Historic Landmarks Commission. Said approval, disapproval, or conditional approval shall follow the same proceduresestablished for such approval in the Municipal Code.

Item III.B Page 48 of 388
V Development Phasing
Phasing of development is permitted if a phasing plan is reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of the Development Plan Approval of development for oneor more parcels.

VI. Permitted Uses
A. Parcel A (as referenced herein)

1. Recreational/open space and public parking; and/or,

2. Visitor-serving uses in accordance with the Local Coastal Plan "Hotel and Related Commerce I" designation (HRC-I) as follows:
a. Hotel, motel, or lodge
b. Conference center in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.c. Restaurant or restaurants in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.d. Cocktail lounge or lounges in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.e. Stores or shops in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.f. Health club in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.g. Recreational facilities in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge.h. Automobile rental in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge. i. Bicycle rentals in conjunction with a hotel, motel, or lodge. j. Ancillary uses for the express purpose of hotel, motel, or lodge operations include, but not limited to, the following:(1) Employee cafeteria(2) Kitchens(3) Restrooms(4) Lobby(5) Storage and back-of-the-house(6) Coat/phones(7) Administrative offices

Item III.B Page 49 of 388
B. Parcels B and C

1. Primary Use
As indicated in the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP), the primary land use forParcels B and C shall be public park and recreational facilities developed in conjunction with public parking in accordance with Chapter 2837 of the Munich Code.

2. Secondary Use for Parcel B
Notwithstanding the primary use specified above, if Parcel B is not acquired, dedicated, or otherwise developed for public park and recreational facilities, the following uses shall be considered in compliance with the underlying land usedesignation described in the City's Local Coastal Plan subject to alfdevelopment regulations adopted pursuant to the authority and conditions herein:

3. 4.
a. Visitor-semng uses in accordance with the Local Coastal Plan designation for "Hotel and Related Commerce II."
b. Recreation and open space facilities in conjunction with parking.

In accordance with the Conditions of Approval set forth in the Coastal Development Permit (4-81-205) for the hotel development on Parcel A, approvedby the California Coastal Commission (CCC) on October 7, 1981, the followingstandards shall apply to development on Parcels B and C:
a. The total area to be developed on Parcels B and C pursuant to Section VI.B.1 and 2 above, and parking for those allowed uses, shall be limited to 3.0 acres.

Upon development of Parcels B and/or C, all areas outside the identified building envelope shall be dedicated for public open recreational use. b. If the total area allocated to development (commercial uses, associated parking and landscaping) on Parcels B/C exceeds two acres, provisions for a 75 bed hostel shall be made consistent with Condition D(l), (2) or (3) of CoastalDevelopment Permit 4-81-205.

The following additional standards apply to Parcel B if the site is developed with ahotel/resort which does not primarily provide low and moderate cost visitor serving accommodations:a. The hostel provided for by Coastal Development Permit 4-81-205 shall be increased in size from 75 to 100 beds. The developer of Parcel B shall be responsible for funding the additional beds, associated additional construction and land costs.

Item III.B Page 50 of 388
b. The hostel shall meet the criteria for a superior grade hostel facility equivalent to that established by the American Youth Hostel Association. The hostelshall be dedicated to a public agency or private organization which will own and operate it in perpetuity as a hostel. If the hostel is not located on Parcel B, it shall not displace existing low or moderate income lodging facilities withinthe City's Coastal Zone and shall be done in a manner consistent with the City's housing policies of its LUP. The hostel shall not be provided above space utilized for entertainment or night activity.
c. The land dedicated for public open recreational use in Section VI.B3.a above shall also be developed with recreational uses consistent with those uses shown on the Santa Barbara Park and Hotel Plan, dated June 15, 1992. Therecreational uses shall be constructed concurrent with development of thehotel and completed prior to occupancy of the hotel on ParcelB. d. The hostel required in Section VI.B3.b above shall be increased in size from 75 to 100 beds. Issuance of the building permit for the hostel shall be a prerequisite for the issuance of the building permit for the hotel/resort. In addition, the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the hostel shall be a prerequisite for the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for thehotel/resort.

VII. Development Regulations
A. Deficiency Point System

1. Traffic and Circulation
a. Parcel A
During the period that the City of Santa Barbara utilizes the 100 point "deficiency points" system (Policy 11.2 and 12. 1 of the adopted Local Coastal Plan) as one of the criteria in the evaluation of proposed developments within the Waterfront Area, the City shall not permit development within Parcel A ofSpecific Plan 1 that will generate traffic that exceeds a cumulative total of 20 deficiency points or 360 p.m. peak hour trips (in plus out) as determined by the Department of Public Works.
b. Parcel B and C
In accordance with the policies for the City's Coastal Zone, the development of Parcels B and C is not a priority use for which deficiency points have beenreserved. Development of Parcels B and C shall be evaluated for deficiencypoints in the same manner as all other projects in the Waterfront Area consistent with LCP Policies 11.2, 12. 1, and Coastal Act Section 30254. Thecumulative total of the development of Parcels A, B and C shall not exceed 30

Item III.B Page 51 of 388
deficiency points or 552 p.m. peak hour trips as determined by the Department of Public Works with the exception of the peak hour trips associated with theportion of land not included in the original Specific Plan. Trips associated with the additional land (see shaded portion of Exhibit B) included in this amended Specific Plan shall be permitted in accordance with the LCP andMunicipal Code Section 28.87300. c. Monitoring
Automatic traffic counters shall be installed at the entrances and exits of each parcel which can be monitored for purposes of assuring compliance with "a" and "b" above. If, upon inspection by the City, violations of these conditionsare found, development permits approved pursuant to the authority andconditions of this plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission foradditional controls and conditions to reduce traffic generated by such developments.

2. Parking
a. Developer shall provide parking in accordance with the minimum City ordinance requiremente. However, parking needs for individual developmentmay be evaluated on a site/use-specific basis. Parking shall be provided tomeet peak parking needs as justified through written evaluation by the applicant and reviewed by the Transportation and Parking Manager and/or Planning Commission. New development may, based upon site/use-specific considerations, be required to provide parking in excess of the minimumordinance requirements. In the case that parking needs are determined to be less than minimum ordinance requirements, the Planning Commission mayapprove a Modification Application.The developer shall waive the right to protest the formation of a Waterfront Area parking district.All legal on-street parking removed as a result of any project shall be replaced on site, or off-site in close proximity within the Coastal Zone as approved by the Planning Commission, on a one-for-one basis. The number of parkingspaces to be replaced shall be determined by the Transportation and Parking Manager. Said spaces shall be in addition to the minimum required inaccordance with (2.a), above.

3. Alternative Transportation Incentives
a. Parcels A and B
(1) Any hotel/motel use shall meet the following requirements:
b.
c.

Item III.B Page 52 of 388
(a) The developer, upon application for hotel/motel uses, shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval, a visitor information program. The program shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i) A means of providing train, bus, airline schedules and maps to prospective hotel guests.
(ii) A means of providing hotel guests with alternative transportation modes, schedules, and maps of access to the Central BusinessDistrict, beach area, and other local and regional points of interest.
(iii) Advertisement for and to solicit conferences which includes the City's clean air and energy goals and explanation of the benefitsof using alternative transportation modes. (iv) A means of coordinating special events with the City (i.e.. Fiesta) so that appropriate traffic controls, rerouting, and timing of events can be achieved.
(b) A shuttle service to the Airport, train depot, bus depot, and other hotels shall be provided.
(c) Bike rentals shall be provided for hotel guests.
(2) Bicycle parking shall be provided as follows:
(a) One (1) bicycle parking space for every seven (7) automobile spaces shall be provided.
(b) Lockable employee bicycle parking spaces shall be provided within an enclosed, covered area. All bicycle rack areas shall be located in anarea within direct view of security personnel. (3) Shower and locker facilities shall be provided for use by all employees.(4) Carpool spaces shall be provided for employees: At least 10% of the employee parking spaces.
(5) Employees shall be made aware of the Ride Sharing program administered by the Area Planning Council.
(6) Maps showing bicycle route and bus route/schedule information shall be posted in a least two (2) locations.

Item III.B Page 53 of 388
(7) Free bus passes shall be made available to all employees. b. Parcel C
(1) One (1) bicycle parking space for every seven (7) automobile spaces shall be provided.
(2) Maps showing bicycle route and bus route/schedule information shall be posted in a least two (2) locations.
(3) Shower, locker and enclosed lockable bike parking facilities shall be provided for use by employees of any use employing twenty (20) or more persons.

4. Public Improvements
a. The developer shall widen adjacent streets as necessary to accommodate estimated future traffic volumes, non-project plus project. The calculations to support the proposed street widening, if any, shall be approved by the City Transportation Engineer.
b. Adequate storage lengths for right-tum or left-tum movements shall be provided on streets adjacent to the project, including, but not limited to:
* (1) Eastbound left-tum on Cabrillo Boulevard at Calle Puerto Vallarta. * (2) Westbound right-tum on Cabrillo Boulevard at Calle Puerto Vallarta.* (3) Southbound on Calle Puerto Vallarta at Cabrillo Boulevard.* (4) Northbound left-tum on Calle Puerto Vallarta at Milpas Street.* (5) Southbound right-tum on Milpas Street at Calle Puerto Vallarta.* (6) Northbound left-tum on Calle Puerto Vallarta at project driveways.* (7) Signalized pedestrian crossing shall be provided at Salsipuedes Street/Cabrillo Boulevard and Punta Gorda Street/Cabrillo Boulevard. (8) Northbound left-tum on Salsipuedes Street at project driveway(s).

The adequacy of such turning lanes shall be substantiated to the satisfaction of theCity Transportation Engineer. * c. The developer shall install or contribute to full-actuated traffic signals at the following intersections. In addition, said signals shall be bicycle actuated and

Item III.B Page 54 of 388
interconnected with existing signal systems. Signals shall be in full operation prior to occupancy clearance.

Intersection Contribution
Calle Puerto Vallarta at 100%
Milpas StreetCalle Puerto Vallarta at 100%Cabrillo Boulevard Salsipuedes Street at 100%
Cabrillo BoulevardMilpas Street at southbound 25%U.S. 101 on-ramp Timing
Concurrently -with construction ofhotel/conference center.Concurrently with construction ofhotel/conference center. * Improvements required for Parcel A have been completed. d. The developer shall offer for dedication and improve Salsipuedes Street within the Specific Plan Area and shall improve the extension of Salsipuedes Street across City owned lands to an intersection with Cabrillo Boulevard.

Salsipuedes Street shall have a right of way width of eighty-four (84') feet andbe improved with a paved width of sbdy-seven (67') feet with curbs, gutters,sidewalks, street trees, street lights, street name signs and stop signs inconformance with the Standards of the City for the construction of publicstreets. The developer shall also install traffic lights at the intersection ofSalsipuedes Street and Cabrillo Boulevard when directed by the City. Said dedication shall be accomplished by the Final Map creating Parcels A, B andC. The easterly half of said improvements shall be required as a condition ofapproval of the site plan for the development of Parcel A and the westerly halfof said improvements shall be required as a condition of approval of the site plan for the development of ParcelB.
e. The following alternative transportation measures shall be instituted as a minimum:
(1) Bus pockets, shelters, and bike parking facilities, shall be provided as determined appropriate by the developer, in concurrence with the CityTransportation Engineer and the Metropolitan Transit District. (2) Use of bicycles shall be encouraged by:
(a) Constructing shower and locker facilities for use by employees of any use employing (20) or more persons.

Item III.B Page 55 of 388
(b) Linking any on-site bikeways with adjacent City bikeways. This should include linking to bike lanes on adjacent streets where appropriate.
(c) Constructing bicycle storage facilities as required by City ordinance.

B. Visual and Aesthetics

1. Buildine Setbacks
a. Cabrillo Boulevard
(1) Parcel A
(a) 120-feet measured from the existing curb line for one story buildings and parking facilities.
(b) 180-feet measured from the existing curb line for two (2) story buildings.
(c) Plazas and recreational facilities for public use must be set back at least 50 feet measured from the existing curb line.
(2) Parcels B and C
(a) 75-feet minimum measured from the existing curb line.(b) Plazas, parking, driveways, and structures for recreational facilities (i.e., storage buildings, kiosks, restrooms and carousel) for public usemust be set back at least 10 feet measured from the existing curbline. b. Calle Puerto Vallarta/Milpas Street
(1) 40-feet measured from the property line for one story buildings and parking structures and 75-feet measured from the property line for two story buildings and parking structures.
(2) Surface and underground parking, plaza and recreation areas must be set back at least 25 feet from the property line along Salsipuedes Street, andup to 10 feet from Calle Puerto Vallarta and Milpas Street. c. Salsipuedes Street
(1) 33.5-feet measured from the new curb line pursuant to Section VIIA.4.d.above.

Item III.B Page 56 of 388
d. Santa Barbara Street
(1) As required by Chapter 28.22 of the Municipal Code.

2. Landscaping
a. All setback areas as specified above shall be landscaped. b. Parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's Parking Ordinance and completely screened from all streets. c. Landscaping along Cabrillo Boulevard shall be compatible with that of Chase Palm Park. Existing mature and healthy trees shall be saved and included in the landscaping design, or as provided within the development plan approval. d. Dense, fast-growing species of trees and shrubs shall be provided along the railroad right-of-way as allowed by the Public Utilities Commission. e. All plant material shall be a drought tolerant species.f. All loading docks, trash areas, and service areas shall be screened with structural enclosures and dense landscaping.

3. Building Heieht
a. Two (2) stories, not to exceed thirty (30) feet; or
b. Provide a height-setback relation study for the purpose of maximizing view protection/enhancement and creation of contiguous open space areas. If utilizing this method to determine building height, in no case shall anybuildings exceed three (3) stories and 45 feet. Determination to allow heightsetbacks shall be by the Planning Commission through advisement by theHistoric Landmarks Commission.

4. Architectural Design
a. The development of Parcels A, B and C shall be subject to review by the Historic Landmarks Commission to ensure that the architectural design, scale, and character are reflective of the character of the El Pueblo Viejo District.

5. View Corridors/Distance Between Buildings
a. Prior to the development of Parcels A, B and C, a view corridor study shall be provided to determine the necessary distances between buildings. Views shallbe assessed from Cabrillo Boulevard toward the foothills and mountains. The Historic Landmarks Commission shall advise the Planning Commission on the

Item III.B Page 57 of 388
determination of view corridors. In no case shall building sqiarations be less than permitted in the basic zone established for the property. b. All buildings shall be oriented to preserve and enhance the determined view corridors.

6. Signs
a. All signs shall be subject to review and approval, disapproval, or conditional approval by the Sign Committee in accordance with section 22.70 of the Municipal Code.
b. Signs shall be minimal, clear and unobtrusive and be complementary to other signs within the Specific Plan area.

7. Other Regulations
a. All utilities shall be placed underground.
b. All exterior lighting shall be of low intensity and within the "white" light color spectrum, except as necessary for recreational activities. c. Lighting standards shall be designed in harmony with the coastal orientation of the site and architectural design of the building.
d. Lighting standards shall not exceed 12 feet in height, e?(ceptmg public street lights along the street right-of-way or as necessary for recreational activities.

C. Recreation and Open Space

1. Parcel A
A condition of development of a hotel/conference center on Parcel A shall include dedication and the improvement of a park site. The amount of park area shall be4 acres per 1000 persons based upon two (2) persons per guest room.

2. Parcels B and C
Additional dedication and improvement of park land shall be required. The amount will be predicated upon the generated recreation demand by the particular project.

Item III.B Page 58 of 388

3. 4.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit to develop Parcel B with a hotel/resortwhich does not primarily provide low and moderate cost visitor serving accommodations. Parcel C shall be issued a building permit for development of recreation and open space uses, consistent with those uses shown on the SantaBarbara Waterfront Park and Hotel Plan, dated June 15, 1992, subject to approvalby the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. In addition, issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the park shall be a prerequisitefor the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the hotel/resort.

Appropriate signage shall be provided between the northwest comer of Salsipuedes Street and Cabrillo Boulevard and the easterly entrance to the floral gateway (as shown on the Santa Barbara Waterfront Park and Hotel Plan, dated June 15, 1992), at the northeast comer of Santa Barbara Street and Cabrillo Boulevard, and facing Cabrillo Boulevard adjacent to the pump house which clearly states that therecreation and open space areas are for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Interpretive signage about wetland habitat and other natural history features of the site shall be provided at appropriate locations in the park area.

Prior to the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit to develop Parcels B or C, a deed restriction must be recorded which indicates that the approved use is a visitor serving use exclusively available to the general public. The deed restrictionshall also specify that conversion of any portion of the approved facilities to aprivate or member only use or the implementation of any program to allow extended or exclusive use or occupancy of the facilities by an individual or limited group or segment of the public is not authorized and would require an amendment or new coastal development permit.

D. Geology and Drainage

1. Geology
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report. This report should relate specifically to the submitted plan and address at a minimum:
a. The recommended design earthquake magnitude, the engineering characteristics of this earthquake (i.e., maximum ground acceleration, durationof strong shaking, etc.) including the effects of site conditions, and likelihood of occurrence. Site effects may include changes in near surface conditions that will occur as a result of grading.
b. Measures to be implemented to reduce the potential for liquefaction beneath the proposed structures to a level that is consistent with hazard reductionpolicies of the City.

Item III.B Page 59 of 388
c. Measures to be implemented to reduce settlement to amounts that can be accommodated by the proposed site improvements (i.e., structures, drainage devices, etc.).

This report shall be reviewed by an independent qualified Engineering Geologist and a Soils Engineer retained by the City to ensure that the measures proposedmeet the intent of City policies regarding hazard reduction. The design earthquakecharacteristics as developed in this report shall be taken into account by the structural engineer in the design of the proposed site improvements.

2. Drainage
Public Works Department approval must be obtained for a drainage plan to provide adequate storm drainage for a 100 year storm for all parcels, considermgeach parcel as fully developed. Adequate positive drainage for this site shall mean a positive underground storm drain system meeting the criteria of the Interim Design and Improvement Standards of the City as well as that no major sheet flow from the site shall significantly impede two lanes of traffic along CabrilloBoulevard.

As each parcel develops, the portion of the underground drainage for that parcel must be constructed prior to issuance of a building permit to assure that there will be "no flooding" as described above during site construction with the site drainage for the parcel to be completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.Since Calle Puerto Vallarta is to be reconstructed with an increase in elevation,positive drainage must be provided from the park on the south side.

E. Housing
Development proposals for Parcels A, B or C shall satisfy the City's requirement tomitigate any impact the project may have on the City's housing stock through thecreation of new affordable housing as required by Chapter 28.87300 of the Municipal Code.

F Public Service

1. Water Conservation
a. Development of Parcels A, B and C shall be limited to a maximum water consumption of public potable -water of two and four-tenths (2.4) acre feet per year per acre. Data shall be provided by the developer to ensure compliance

Item III.B Page 60 of 388
with this provision and based on water consumption standards approved by the Department of Public Works.
b. Water conservation fuctures shall be provided as follows, but not limited to:
(1) 1.5 gallon per flush toilets and urinals(2) One-half gallon per minute (0.5 gpm) flow faucets(3) Two gallon per minute (2.0 gpm) flow shower heads(4) State-of-the-art water-conserving dishwashers(5) Recycling of laundry water c. Landscaping shall be drought tolerant vegetation. Irrigation systems for landscaping shall be designed for use of reclaimed water, except in areas where salt leaching and other technical problems preclude use of reclaimedwater. d. Water sprinklers shall be shut off between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in summer season.

2. Fire. Security, and Safety Protection
a. A complete disaster evacuation and safety plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Smoke detectors in all commercial areas, units, guest rooms and work spaces.
(2) Fire alarm system that is tested and reliable during all adverse circumstances.
(3) Sprinkler systems where determined to be necessary.(4) Posted safety procedures and evacuation routes throughout.(5) An evacuation and safety plan to include flood, fire, earthquake, hazardous materials, and tsunami disaster warning.
b. Adequate fire flow pressure as required by the Fire Chief shall be provided. c. Building materials shall be fire resistant and designed to minimize fire hazards due to earthquakes or other natural disasters.

Item III.B Page 61 of 388
d. Security systems shall be provided, and such plans shall be approved by the Police Chief.

G. Noise Protection
Building construction methods shall be utilized in the building design to attain interiornoise levels no greater than 45 db(A). Such design feahires may include, but are not limited to:

1. Deep recessed windows with double strength tempered glass.

2. Walls that face the noise source constructed of solid masonry or other comparable materials with few or no openings for doors or windows.

3. Where doors and windows are provided, adequate caulking, double glazing and heavy grade weather striping shall be provided.

4. Solid sealing of wall/roof surfaces.5. Insulation.

H. Enerev Conservation
Prior to the submittal of plans for development plan approval for Parcels A, B or C, the applicant shall submit a detailed energy conservation plan(s) which shall include, butnot be limited to the following:

1. Electrical and Lighting
a. Minimize use of unnecessary lighting with use of timers and automatic shut off switches.
b. Establish lighting needs and priorities for different periods of the day and night.
c. Develop a plan to minimize peak power demand.d. Use of alternative lighting types with the most effective energy savings. e. Maximize use of natural lighting.f. Survey effective passive cooling and ventilation features including structure design to take advantage of sun shading and wind induced cross ventilation, such as:
(1) Air scoops to collect prevailing winds.

Item III.B Page 62 of 388
(2) Proper location of vegetation.
(3) Roof overhangs.
(4) Sunshades to increase wind pressure near inlets.(5) Insulate and ventilate attic space.(6) Use gravity ventilation to create natural ventilation. g. Insulation of walls, floors and ceilings.

2. Natural Gas
a. Provide adequate solar design, where feasible, including:
(1) Insulation of walls, floors and ceilings.(2) Use of building materials that store daytime heat.(3) Controlled penetration of sun through south facing windows (i.e., awnings, special blinds, double glazed windows, overhangs).
(4) Provide solar water heaters.

The final plans for energy conservation shall be reviewed and approved by the Cityprior to the release of building permits. Their report and analysis shall beforwarded to the Land Use Controls Division for incorporation into the project asbuilt.

VIII. Administration Of Specific Plan No. 1
A. All references herein to ordinances are to ordinances as currently written unless expressly provided to the contrary. To the extent legally permitted, in the event of anyconflict between the Specific Plan and the General Plan, ordinances or other policies ofthe City of Santa Barbara, the Specific Plan shall prevail. In the event any condition orterm herein set forth is declared illegal or unenforceable, the other terms and conditions shall remain in full force and effect to the full extent permitted by law.

Item III.B Page 63 of 388

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Specific Plan No. 1 (Park Plaza) includes the following parcels1:

All that certain land situated in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, State of California, described as follows:

1. Parcels A, B and C of Parcel Map No. 20356 in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, State of California, as per map thereof filed in Book 31, Pages 4, 5 and 6 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.

EXCEPTING FROM said property that portion thereof lying below a depth of 500 feet, measured vertically from the contour of the surface of said property, without, however, theright to any purpose whatsoever to enter upon, into and through the surface of said propertyor any part thereof lying between said surface and 500 feet below said surface as exceptedby Santa Barbara - Cabrillo Coqxn-ation, a California Corporation, in the deed recordedFebruary 12, 1982, as Instrument No. 81-6165 of Official Records.

2. Beginning at the intersection of the Northeasterly line of Santa Barbara Street with a line that is parallel with and distant 53 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of Southern Pacific Transportation Company's eastward main line track;thenceSoutheasterly, along said Northeasteriy line, 146.5 feet, more or less, to the most Westerlycomer of that parcel of land described as Parcel One in that certain deed to the City ofSanta Barbara, recorded November 16, 1925 in Book 81, Page 219 of Official Records, records of said CounQr, thence Northeasterly, along the Northwesterly line of those parcelsdescribed as Parcels One and Two in said deed to the City of Santa Barbara, Northeasterly, along a curve concave Southerly having a radius of 1567.7 feet, an arc distance of 550.17 feet to the most Northerly comer of said Parcel Two; thence North 81 ° 43' 53" East, 39. 10 feet to the Northeasterly line or its Southeasterly prolongation of Garden Street; thence Northwesterly at right angles to the above mentioned parallel line, to said parallel line; thence Southwesterly, along said parallel line to the point of beginning, containing an area of

1.58 acres, more or less.

3. That certain parcel or strip of land situated in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, State of California, being all that portion of Caqiinteria Street (60 feet wide) lyingNortheasterly of the Northerly line and/or its Westerly prolongation of that parcel of land described in that certain indenture recorded March 13, 1925 as File No. 2296 in Book 59, It should be noted that this legal description only defines the various properties that are included within the Specific Plan Area. This legal description does not delineate said parcels in line with Parcels A, B and C asdescribed in the Specific Plan Text or in Exhibit B of this Specific Plan.

Item III.B Page 64 of 388

is parallel with and distant 53 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles, from the centerline of Southern Pacific Transportation Company's eastward main line track.

4. Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of Garden Street, (now vacated) with the Northerly line of East Boulevard; thence North 48 ° 10' West along said center line, 143.82 feet to a point distant 110 feet measured North 9 ° 47' 02" West from the Northerly line of said East Boulevard; thence North 81 ° 43' 53" East 315 feet, more or less, to the Northwest comer of the tract of land described in the deed from Pacific-Southwest Trust & Savings Bank, a corporation to City of Santa Barbara, a municipal corporation datedFebruary 10, 1925 and recorded in Book 59 at Page 303 of Official Records of said County, thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said tract to the Southwesterly comer thereof being a point on the Northerly line of East Boulevard; thence South 88 ° 03' 30" West, alongsaid Northerly line 41.2 feet to a point; thence on a curve concave to the left having a radiusof 1457.7 feet and a delta of 5 » 49' 23", 110.16 feet to the point of beginning.EXCEPTING therefrom those portions, if any, lying within the lines of Parcel Map No. 20356, recorded November 23, 1982 in Book 31, Pages 4, 5 and 6 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

5. Beginning at the point of intersection of the Northeasteriy line of Laguna Street (now vacated,) and the Northerly line of East Boulevard; thence South 88 » 03' 30" West, alongsaid Northerly line of East Boulevard 634 feet to a point; thence at right angles to saidNortherly line to a point in the Northeriy line of a tract of land described as Parcel 2, in the deed from Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, to Pacific-Southwest Trust and Savings Bank, a corporation, dated August 27, 1924 and recorded in Book 47 at Page 333 of Official Records of said County, thence North 91 ° 43' 53" East, along said least mentioned line, to the Northeasterly comer of said tract, being a point distant 200 feet Northerly from theNortherly line of East Boulevard, measured at right angles thereto; thence South 41 ° 30' West 18238 feet; thence 48 ° 10' East 98.74 feet to the point of beginning.EXCEPTING therefrom those portions, if any, lying within the lines of Parcel Map No. 20356, recorded November 23, 1982 in Book 31, Pages 4, 5 and 6 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

6. Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Southerly 10 feet of Lot 6 in Block A; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15 in Block B; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, 18 in Block C; and those portions of Block D and Lot 6 in Block 0, in Shore Acres, in the City of Santa Barbara, County of Santa Barbara, State ofCalifornia, according to the map thereof recorded January 19, 1912 in Book 6 at Page 51 of Maps and Surveys in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, lying between the Northerly line of East Boulevard and a line drawn parallel with and distant 200 feet Northeriy therefrom; - being all of said Blocks A, B, C and D, lying between said parallel lines.

Item III.B Page 65 of 388
EXCEPTING therefrom those portions, if any, lying within the lines of Parcel Map No. 20356, recorded November 23, 1982 in Book 31, Pages 4, 5 and 6 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

7. A parcel of land beginning at the intersection of the Northeasterly line of Santa Barbara Street with the center line of vacated Quinientos Street; thence North 48 ° 10' West alongsaid Northeasteriy line of Santa Barbara Street 91.22 feet to a point distant 110 feet Northwesterly measured radially from the Northerly line of East (Cabrillo) Boulevard produced Westeriy on curved line having a radius of 1457.7 feet; thence Northeasterly along a curve concave to the right having a radius of 1567.7 feet (the radial line to said curve atlast mentioned point bears North 29 ° 53' 29" West) a distance of 237.49 feet to a point in the center line of said vacated Quinientos Street; thence South 41 ° 50' West along said center line 219.02 feet to the point of beginning.

8. Beginning at the point of intersection of the Northeasteriy line of Santa Barbara Street with the center line of Quinientos Street (now vacated) as said streets are shown upon the official map of said City, thence North 41 ° 50' East along said center line of vacated QuinientosStreet 219.02 feet to the Southwesteriy comer of Parcel One described in the deed from Pacific-Southwest Trust & Savings Bank, a corporation, to Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, dated December 12, 1924, and recorded December 13, 1924 inBook 46, at Page 452 of Official Records, records of said County, thence Northeasterly alongthe Southerly line of said tract of land described in said deed, being a line drawn concentricto and 110 feet measured radially Northerly from the Northerly line of East Boulevard,312.68 feet to a point in the center line of vacated Garden Street; thence South 48 ° 10' East along said center line to the intersection thereof with the prolongation Northeasterly of theSoutheasterly line of the North quarter of Block 336^ of said City, thence Southwesterlyalong said prolonged line to its intersection with the Northerly line of East Boulevard, thence Westerly along said Northerly line on a curve concave to the left having a radius of 1457.7 feet and a delta of 20 ° 04' 22", 460 feet, more or less, to the end thereof and a point on the Southeasterly line of said vacated Quinientos Street, thence continuing Westerly along said Northeriy line of East Boulevard on a curve concave to the left having a radius of 1457.7 feet and a delta of 0 ° 33' 56" 14.3 feet to the end thereof and a point on the Northeasterly line of Santa Barbara Street, thence North 48 ° 10' West along said street line

25.04 feet to the point of beginning.

Item III.B Page 66 of 388

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
RESOLUTION NO. 94-030
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
}
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA }
I, SANDRA E. LIZARRAGA, City Clerk in and for the City of Santa Barbara, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-030 was adopted by the City Council at themeeting held March 22, 1993, 9:00 A.M., by the following vote on roll call:

YEAS: COUNCILMEMBERS:

HELENE G. BEAVER ELINOR G. A. LANGER
HAROLD P. FAIRY HARRIET MILLERGILBERT GARCIA TOM ROGERS

MAYOR HAL CONKLIN
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Santa Barbara this 22nd day of March, 1994.

Deputy city^Cflerk
I HEREBY APPROVE this Resolution this /2^nd day of March, 1994 M&y6r
Item III.B Page 67 of 388
Item III.B Page 68 of 388

ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805)687-4418 • FAX (805)682-8509 • [email protected] Since 1978
Richard L. Pool, P.E.

Scott A. Schell
February 5, 2024 22012L08
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel
c/o Park Hotels & Resorts
Submitted via email: [email protected]

UPDATED PARKING STUDY FOR THE HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT – CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepared the following updated parking study for the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Hotel Expansion Project (“Hilton Hotel”), located in the City of Santa Barbara. The study reviews the Project’s Zoning Ordinance parking requirements and modifications, calculates the Project’s peak parking demands, and evaluates the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. The study also reviews the parking area that the Hilton Hotel is providing via an easement for the future Waterfront Hotel Project located directly across Calle Caesar Chavez from the site. The updated study addresses the comments provided by City staff in the Land Development Team (LDT) letters dated June 2 and December 7, 2023.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Hilton Hotel is proposing to construct 73 net new hotel rooms as an expansion of existing Building B. This includes demolition of 8 rooms in Building A, conversion of 4 rooms to 2 suites, and construction of 83 new rooms. The new hotel rooms will replace the tennis courts and on-site surface parking spaces located on the western side of the property.

The proposed changes will require a reconfiguration of the parking lots in this area of the hotel. Figure 1 (attached) presents the Project site plan.

The proposed expansion will increase the size of the Hilton Hotel from 360 rooms to 433 rooms. Additional facilities provided for hotel guests within the expanded Building B include a new bar, hotel terrace and pool deck. These facilities are restricted to hotel guests only, therefore these facilities were not included in the parking demand analysis. The existing restaurants provided onsite include 207 seats in the Roundhouse Restaurant, 146 seats in the Set Restaurant, 14 seats for wine tasting, 22 seats for Java café, and 15 seats for the bar.

Additional facilities provided onsite include a spa, salon, retail shop, and meeting/banquet space. Table 1 presents the statistics for the Project and Table 2 provides a more detailed breakdown of the indoor and outdoor meeting/banquet space. The land use quantities used in the parking analysis were based on hotel statistics provided by the applicant as well as detailed interior surveys by the Project architects. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the location and sizes of the Hilton Hotel public hotel amenity areas.

EXHIBIT E Item III.B Page 69 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 2 February 5, 2024
Table 1
Hilton Hotel Project Statistics
Hotel Component Size
Hotel Rooms
Existing
Demolished (Building A)
Converted to Suites
New
Total
360Rooms
-8 Rooms
-2 Rooms
+83 Rooms
433 Rooms
Public Commercial Areas – Existing
SF Seats/Rooms
Restaurants
Roundhouse
Set
Wine tasting experience
Java
Set Bar
Indoor/Outdoor SF
2,473 SF indoor/1,687 SF outdoor
1,358 SF indoor/1,446 SF outdoor
392 SF indoor
591 SF indoor
N/A
Indoor/Outdoor Seats
132 indoor/75 outdoor
70 indoor/76 outdoor
14 indoor
22 indoor
15 indoor
Spa 1,200 SF 4 Rooms
Salon 563 SF 7 Chairs & 3 mani/pedi
Retail 957 SF NA
Meeting/Banquet Space (a) 24,808 SF
Hotel Only Commercial Areas - Existing
Terraza del Mar
Pool deck
48 outdoor
136 outdoor
Hotel Only Commercial Areas – Proposed
Terrace
Pool Deck
Bar
1,735 SF
7,525 SF
420 SF
(a) See Table 2 for a more detailed breakdown of meeting/banquet space.

Table 2
Hilton Hotel Meeting/Banquet Space Breakdown
Indoor Space Size Outdoor Space(a) Size
Grand Ballroom
Santa Barbara Ballroom
Fiesta
Reagan Room
Vineyard Boardroom,
Los Olivos
Mission Boardroom
Rodney’s
Total
11,419 SF
3,789 SF
1,152 SF
4,412 SF
455 SF
378 SF
245 SF
2,958 SF
24,808 SF
Plaza
Reagan Patio
Rotunda (above Plaza)
Anacapa Patio
Vineyard Terrace
San Rafael Patio
Santa Ynez Patio
Total
15,623 SF
1,200 SF
5,637 SF
2,220 SF
1,000 SF
654 SF
633 SF
26,967 SF
(a) All outdoor space only serves for meals and breakout space for the indoor meeting space and is not sold separately or in addition to a different group.

Item III.B Page 70 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 3 February 5, 2024

PARKING SUPPLY
ATE completed parking space inventories at the Hilton Hotel site in January 2022 and January 2024 to verify the existing parking supply. The survey found that the current onsite parking supply is 931 spaces. This supply does not include the public parking spaces that are located adjacent to Milpas Street on the east end of the parking lot. It is noted that several storage containers have been placed in the eastern portion of the parking lot that currently occupy approximately 16 spaces. These storage containers will be removed as part of the Project and the spaces that they currently occupy are included in the parking inventory. The existing Hilton Hotel parking supply includes the 100 parking spaces that will be provided via an easement to the Waterfront Hotel located on the west side of Calle Cesar Chavez.

Figures 4A and 4B present the existing parking space configuration at the site.

With the proposed hotel expansion, the western portion of the parking lot will be reconfigured. As noted above, 100 of the Hilton Hotel spaces will also be allocated to the Waterfront Hotel (see Figure 1 for easement area). With the changes to the existing parking lot, the total parking supply at the Hilton Hotel site will be reduced from 931 spaces to 880 spaces. The Project also proposes the implementation of valet parking in the eastern area of the existing parking lot during peak events to provide an additional 71 parking spaces. Table 3 summarizes the existing and proposed parking supply for the Project.

Table 3
Hilton Hotel Parking Supply Summary
Project Scenario Total Onsite Spaces Hilton Spaces (a)
Existing 931 Spaces 831 Spaces
2023 Proposed
880 Spaces
71 Valet
951 Spaces
780 Spaces
71 Valet
851 Spaces
(a) Accounts for 100 spaces provided via easement to the Waterfront Hotel.

Item III.B Page 71 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 4 February 5, 2024
Valet Parking Operations
The Project proposes to implement a valet parking program to manage parking operations during peak events with 900 - 1,000 guests. Approximately 2 days prior to the peak event, the parking lot in the eastern portion of the hotel would be signed for “Valet Parking Only” to restrict hotel guest and public use. This area could accommodate an additional 71 valet spaces as shown on Figures 5 and 6. Event guests would enter the site via the main Project driveway on Calle Puerto Vallarta to access the porte cochere and drop-off the vehicle to the valet attendant. There is approximately 200’ of white curb within the porte cochere which could accommodate approximately 10 vehicles in queue for valet parking. The valet attendant would park the vehicle in the eastern portion of the parking lot. The valet attendant would then return to the porte cochere. All vehicle staging for the valet operations would occur on-site and no valet vehicle movements would interfere with the public right-of-way or site access. It is understood that a Valet Parking Agreement, as specified in the City’s Access and Parking Design Standards, will be required as part of the Project’s conditions of approval.

ZONING ORDINANCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for the existing and proposed Hilton Hotel facilities were calculated based on the City’s current municipal code for the Coastal Zone area (SBMC Section 28.90.100). Table 4 shows the Zoning Ordinance requirements for the existing hotel and Table 5 shows the requirements for the proposed hotel.

Item III.B Page 72 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 5 February 5, 2024
Table 4
Existing 2023 Hilton Hotel – Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements Per SBMC Section 28.90.100
Land-Use Existing Land Uses (a) ZO Rate ZO Requirement Bicycle(c) Hotel 360 Rooms 1 Space/Room 360.00 Spaces
199 Spaces
Roundhouse Restaurant 207 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 69.00 Spaces Set Restaurant 146 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 48.67 Spaces
Wine Tasting Experience 14 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 4.67 Spaces Java Restaurant 22 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 7.33 Spaces
Set Bar 15 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 5.00 Spaces
Banquet Hall(b) 24,808 SF 1 Space/4 Seats 886.00 Spaces Spa 1,200 SF 3 Spaces/1,000 SF 3.60 Spaces
Salon 563 SF 3 Spaces/1,000 SF 1.69 Spaces
Retail 957 SF 1 Space/250 SF 3.83 Spaces
TOTAL Requirement 1,390 Spaces
Parking Provided 831 Spaces(d) 58 Spaces
(a) Existing square footages measured and supplied by AB Design Studio, Inc. on September, 2023. (b) Zoning Ordinance assumes 1 Seat = 7 SF of floor area, which equals 3,544 Seats. Banquet Hall consists of indoor space only. All outdoor space only serves for meals and breakout space for the indoor meeting space and is not sold separately or in addition to a different group. (c) Bicycle parking requirement based on 1 bicycle space per 7 vehicle spaces. (d) Parking supply assumes 931 total spaces onsite with 100 spaces allocated via easement to the Waterfront Hotel.

Item III.B Page 73 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 6 February 5, 2024
Table 5
Proposed Hilton Hotel – Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirements Per SBMC Section 28.90.100
Land-Use Proposed Land Uses (a) ZO Rate ZO Requirement Bicycle(c) Hotel 433 Rooms 1 Space/Room 433.00 Spaces
209 Spaces
Roundhouse Restaurant 207 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 69.00 Spaces Set Restaurant 146 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 48.67 Spaces
Wine Tasting Experience 14 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 4.67 Spaces Java Restaurant 22 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 7.33 Spaces
Set Bar 15 Seats 1 Space/3 Seats 5.00 Spaces
Banquet Hall(b) 24,808 SF 1 Space/4 Seats 886.00 Spaces Spa 1,200 SF 3 Spaces/1,000 SF 3.60 Spaces
Salon 563 SF 3 Spaces/1,000 SF 1.69 Spaces
Retail 957 SF 1 Space/250 SF 3.83 Spaces
TOTAL Requirement 1,463 Spaces
Parking Provided 851 Spaces(d) 100 Spaces
(a) Existing square footages measured and supplied by AB Design Studio, Inc. on September, 2023. (b) Zoning Ordinance assumes 1 Seat = 7 SF of floor area, which equals 3,544 Seats. Banquet Hall consists of indoor space only. All outdoor space only serves for meals and breakout space for the indoor meeting space and is not sold separately or in addition to a different group. (c) Bicycle parking requirement based on 1 bicycle space per 7 vehicle spaces. (d) Parking supply assumes 880 marked spaces and 71 valet onsite with 100 spaces allocated via easement to the Waterfront Hotel.

As shown in Table 4, the Zoning Ordinance Requirement for the existing hotel is 1,390 vehicle spaces and 199 bicycle spaces. Table 5 shows that the Zoning Ordinance Requirement for the proposed hotel is 1,463 vehicle spaces and 209 bicycle spaces.

SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS
A shared parking model was developed to determine the peak parking demands for the Project for weekday and weekend daytime and evening periods when the hotel, restaurants, banquet hall and retail facilities would be busiest. The concept of shared parking recognizes that a single space may serve several different uses at different times during the day. The shared parking model was developed using parking demand rates and time-of-day factors contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation report1and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking report2for the individual Project uses, as discussed below. These reports have been updated numerous times since the approved Project in 2003 which reflect current travel modes and higher utilization of alternative transportation (ride-share/Uber/Lyft, etc.). The shared parking model was developed for peak hotel operations assuming a special event in the banquet/meeting space. 1 Parking Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition, 2019. 2 Shared Parking, Urban Land Institute, 3d Edition, 2021.

Item III.B Page 74 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 7 February 5, 2024
Hotel. Parking demands for the 433 hotel rooms were calculated using the rates presented in the ULI Shared Parking Report for Leisure Hotels. The hotel areas covered by this parking demand rate include the hotel guest rooms, circulation corridors, and back of house areas such as offices, lobby, storage rooms, etc.). The ULI rate accounts for the parking demands generated by both hotel guests and employees.

Hotel Restaurants. Parking demands for the Roundhouse Restaurant, wine tasting room and bar areas were based on the ITE rates for High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurants with Bar or Lounge (Land use Code #932). Parking demands for the Set Restaurant were based on the ITE rates for Quality Restaurants (Land Use Code #931), and demand for the Java restaurant were calculated using the ITE rate for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window (Land use Code (936). These rates include the parking demands generated by both restaurant patrons and employees. As noted in Table 1, the parking analysis does not include the seats for the existing hotel terrace (Terraza Del Mar) and pool deck, or the future guest amenities in the Building B expansion (terrace, pool deck and bar) as these would be reserved for hotel guests only (no public use).

Meeting/Banquet Space. Parking demands for the meeting/banquet space were calculated using data from the ULI Shared Parking report since no ITE rates are provided for this type of use. These rates include the parking demands generated by both guests and employees.

All outdoor space only serves for meals and breakout space for the indoor meeting space and is not sold separately or in addition to a different group. These areas were therefore excluded from the parking demand analysis.

Spa/Salon. The parking demands for the 14 spa rooms and salon stations were calculated assuming that 4 of the stations would be occupied by members of the public not staying at the hotel (30% public utilization).

Retail. Parking demands for the retail shop building were calculated based on the ITE rates for Shopping Centers (Land use Code #820). These rates include the parking demands generated by both customers and employees.

The ULI and ITE time of day factors were used to estimate the hourly parking demands for each of the on-site uses. A 45% internal capture factor was used in the parking model to account for the mixed-use interaction between the hotel guests that would attend events in the meeting/banquet space. For the restaurants, spa/salon, and retail uses a, a higher 70% internal factor was used based on data provided by the hotel operators. The internal capture factors account for the fact that a significant portion of the meeting/banquet attendees, restaurant patrons, and spa/salon patrons would be staying at the hotel. The internal capture factor is based on data contained in the ULI report, data from local studies, and data from the applicant’s hotel operators.

Tables 6 and 7 present the peak shared parking demand forecasts developed for the Project during the peak summer weekday and weekend periods assuming 100% occupancy of all onsite facilities and an event in the banquet/meeting space. Spreadsheets showing the detailed shared parking calculations are attached.

Item III.B Page 75 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 8 February 5, 2024
Table 6
Peak Shared Parking Demands - Weekdays
Land Use
Mid-day/Afternoon Period
(11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.)
Evening Period
(6:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M.)
Time Parking Demand Time Parking Demand
Hotel Guests and Employees 9:00 AM 411 Spaces 8:00 PM 403 Spaces The Roundhouse Restaurant 9:00 AM 20 Spaces 8:00 PM 18 Spaces The Set Restaurant 9:00 AM 0 Spaces 8:00 PM 20 Spaces
Meeting/Banquet 9:00 AM 248 Spaces 8:00 PM 248 Spaces
Spa/Salon 9:00 AM 4 Spaces 8:00 PM 1 Space
Retail 9:00 AM 1 Space 8:00 PM 1 Space
Wine Tasting/Bar 9:00 AM 0 Spaces 8:00 PM 4 Spaces
Java Café 9:00 AM 1 Space 8:00 PM 0 Spaces
Total Parking Demand: 685 Spaces 695 spaces
Parking Provided:
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
Parking Surplus:
95 Spaces
+71 Valet Spaces
Total 166 Spaces
85 Spaces
+71 Valet Spaces
Total 156 Spaces
The data presented in Table 6 show that the Project is forecast to generate a peak shared parking demand of 685 spaces during the day and 695 spaces during the evening on weekdays. The proposed parking supply of 851 spaces (780 regular + 71 valet) would therefore accommodate the forecast peak parking demands on weekdays and provide a surplus of 156 to 166 spaces.

Item III.B Page 76 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 9 February 5, 2024
Table 7
Peak Shared Parking Demands – Weekends
Land Use
Mid-day/Afternoon Period
(11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.)
Evening Period
(6:00 P.M. - 12:00 A.M.)
Time Parking Demand Time Parking Demand
Hotel Guests and Employees 9:00 AM 411 Spaces 8:00 PM 403 Spaces The Roundhouse Restaurant 9:00 AM 20 Spaces 8:00 PM 11 Spaces The Set Restaurant 9:00 AM 0 Spaces 8:00 PM 20 Spaces
Meeting/Banquet 9:00 AM 248 Spaces 8:00 PM 248 Spaces
Spa/Salon 9:00 AM 4 Spaces 8:00 PM 1 Space
Retail 9:00 AM 0 Spaces 8:00 PM 1 Space
Wine Tasting/Bar 9:00 AM 0 Spaces 8:00 PM 4 Spaces
Java Café 9:00 AM 2 Spaces 8:00 PM 0 Spaces
Total Parking Demand: 685 Spaces 688 spaces
Parking Provided:
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
Parking Surplus:
95 Spaces
+71 Valet Spaces
Total 166 Spaces
92 Spaces
+71 Valet Spaces
Total 163 Spaces
The data presented in Table 7 show that the Project is forecast to generate a peak shared parking demand of 685 spaces during the day and 688 spaces during the evening on weekends. The proposed parking supply of 851 spaces (780 regular + 71 valet) would therefore accommodate the forecast peak parking demands on weekends and provide a surplus of 163 to 166 spaces.

PEAK LOCAL EVENT PARKING SCENARIO
The EIR prepared for the Project in 2003 included a parking scenario that assumed a 1,000- person event held at the hotel with all event attendees coming from the local area (no event attendees from hotel guests). While this scenario is extremely unlikely to ever occur, it was included in this parking study. The analysis assumes the baseline hotel demands presented previously in Tables 5 and 6 for the hotel guests/employees and the public commercial facilities. For the peak local event parking demands, the analysis assumes 1,000 attendees with an average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of 2.5 guests per vehicle which equates to a peak demand of 400 spaces. This AVO is based on studies of other event facilities and reflects current event travel modes with the advent of ridesharing services. Table 8 presents the results of the peak local event analysis for weekdays and weekends.

Item III.B Page 77 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 10 February 5, 2024
Table 8
Peak Local Event Parking Demands
Hotel Weekday Evening Weekend Evening
Time Parking Demand Time Parking Demand
Hotel Facilities(a) 8:00 PM 447 Spaces 8:00 PM 440 Spaces Peak Local Event (b) 8:00 PM 400 Spaces 8:00 PM 400 Spaces Total Parking Demand: 847 Spaces 840 Spaces
Parking Provided:
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
780 Spaces
+ 71 Valet Spaces
Total 851 Spaces
Parking Surplus: +4 Spaces +11 Spaces
(a) Hotel facilities include hotel guests & employees, restaurants, spa/salon, and retail shops. (b) Peak local event assumes 1,000 public attendees (no hotel guests) and a 2.5 AVO.

The data presented in Table 8 show that the peak local event scenario is forecast to generate a peak shared parking demand of 847 spaces on weekdays and 840 spaces on weekends.

The proposed parking supply of 851 spaces (780 regular + 71 valet) would therefore accommodate the forecast demands for the peak local event scenario and provide a surplus of 4 to 11 spaces.

BICYCLE PARKING
The 2003 parking modification granted for the Project reduced the bicycle parking requirement for the Project from 199 spaces to 50 spaces. Since the 2003 parking modification, the bicycle parking supply has been increased to provide 58 bicycle spaces.

Based on the proposed Project’s parking requirement of 1,463 spaces, the new bicycle parking requirement for the Project is 209 spaces, which is an increase of 10 spaces from the 2003 requirement (1,463 spaces / 7 = 209 spaces). The Project is proposing to increase the onsite bicycle parking supply from 58 to 100 spaces. Table 9 presents the 2003 and 2023 bicycle parking space data for the Project.

Table 9
Bicycle Parking Statistics
Project Scenario
Required
Vehicle Parking
Required Bicycle
Parking
Parking
Provided
Parking
Modification
2003 Project 1,390 199 Spaces 50 Spaces (a) 149 Spaces
2023 Project 1,463 209 Spaces 100 Spaces 109 Spaces
(a) Modification provided in Planning Commission Staff Report, City of Santa Barbara, June 5, 2003 to allow 50 bicycle spaces. The Project currently provides 58 bicycle spaces.

Item III.B Page 78 of 388
Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel Page 11 February 5, 2024
This concludes ATE’s updated parking study for the Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Hotel Project.

Associated Transportation Engineers
Scott A. Schell
Principal Transportation Planner

SAS/GOM
Attachments
Item III.B Page 79 of 388
PROJECT SITE PLAN AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 1 JH - ATE#22012 N NOT TO SCALE Item III.B Page 80 of 388

HILTON HOTEL PUBLIC AMENITIES DIAGRAM
A

T SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE
2 N NOT TO SCALE GM - ATE#22012
Item III.B Page 81 of 388
HILTON HOTEL PROJECT STATISTICS AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 3 GM - ATE#22012 N NOT TO SCALE Item III.B Page 82 of 388
S CALLE CESAR CHAVEZ S CALLE CESAR CHAVEZ POOL BLDG. B BLDG. C BLDG. D BLDG. E BLDG. F BLDG.

EXISTING HILTON HOTEL PARKING - 931 TOTAL SPACES AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 4A N NOT TO SCALE GM - ATE#22012 Matchline See Sheet 4B
223 Existing Spaces 708 Existing Spaces E E E E E E Existing Carpool Stalls 11 Total Existing Stalls 931 Existing Reserved Stalls 5 Existing EV Stalls 6 Existing ADA Stalls 19 Existing Regular Stalls 890 ERC Item III.B Page 83 of 388

S MILPAS S
CALLE PUERTO VALLARTA BLDG. H LOBBY LOBBY/PUBLIC AREA BLDG. G BLDG. G EXISTING HILTON HOTEL PARKING - 931 TOTAL SPACES AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 4B N NOT TO SCALE GM - ATE#22012 Matchline See Sheet 4A
Existing Carpool Stalls 11 Total Existing Stalls 931 Existing Reserved Stalls 5 Existing EV Stalls 6 Existing ADA Stalls 19 Existing Regular Stalls 890 R R R R R C C C C C C C C C C C ERC Trailers To Be Removed Item III.B Page 84 of 388

S MILPAS ST
ALLE PUERTO VALLARTA LOBBY/PUBLIC AREA HILTON HOTEL VALET PARKING - AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 5 N NOT TO SCALE GM - ATE#22012 10 9 9 9 9 To Valet Drop Off 10 71 SPACES 15 Item III.B Page 85 of 388

S MILPAS ST
ALLE PUERTO VALLARTA LOBBY/PUBLIC AREA HILTON HOTEL VALET PARKING - VALET CIRCULATION AND TURNING MOVEMENTS AT SSOCIATED RANSPORTATION E NGINEERS FIGURE 6 N NOT TO SCALE GM - ATE#22012 To Valet Drop Off Item III.B Page 86 of 388
HILTON HOTEL PROJECT (#22012) - WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING DEMAND FORECASTS SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS - ITE DEMAND RATES/ULI TIME-OF-DAY FACTORS (45%-70% INTERNAL CAPTURE) 433 ROOMS Size Units Parking Rate
Internal
Capture Peak Demand
Hotel Guests (a) 433 Rooms 1.00 100% 433
Hotel Employees (a) 433 Rooms 0.15 100% 65
The Roundhouse Restaurant (b) 207 Seats 0.45 70% 28
146 Seats 0.47 70% 21
Banquet (d) 24.808 KSF 18.14 45% 248
Spa/Salon (e) 14 Rooms 1.00 70% 4
Retail (f) 0.957 KSF 2.61 70% 1
Wine Tasting Room & Bar(b) 29 Seats 0.45 70% 4
Java Cafe (g) 22 Seats 0.27 70% 2
(a) ULI rate Leisure Hotel Weekday.
(b) ITE rate High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant w/ Bar-Lounge - Friday (#932). (c) ITE rate Quality Restaurant - Friday (#931).
(d) ULI Parking Ratio for Meeting/Banquet Space - Weekday. (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests.
(f) ITE rate Shopping Center Non-December (#820) - Friday. (g) ITE rate Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Weekday (#936).

Time of Day Hotel Total
Peak Demand Hourly % (a) 433 Hourly % (j) 65 498 Hourly % (b) 28 Hourly % (c) 21 Hourly % (d) 248 Hourly % (e) 4 Hourly % (f) 1 Hourly % (g) 4 Hourly % (h) 2 6:00 a.m. 95% 411 10% 7 418 10% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 421 851 430 7:00 a.m. 95% 411 30% 20 431 25% 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 73% 1 439 851 412 8:00 a.m. 90% 390 100% 65 455 68% 19 0% 0 50% 124 50% 2 32% 0 0% 0 100% 2 602 851 249 9:00 a.m. 80% 346 100% 65 411 72% 20 0% 0 100% 248 100% 4 50% 1 0% 0 63% 1 685 851 166 10:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 77% 22 0% 0 100% 248 100% 4 67% 1 15% 1 57% 1 645 851 206 11:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 83% 23 20% 4 100% 248 100% 4 80% 1 23% 1 42% 1 650 851 201 12:00 Noon 65% 281 100% 65 346 100% 28 51% 11 100% 248 100% 4 100% 1 37% 1 39% 1 640 851 211 1:00 p.m. 65% 281 100% 65 346 91% 25 56% 12 100% 248 100% 4 98% 1 50% 2 27% 1 639 851 212 2:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 56% 16 40% 8 100% 248 100% 4 90% 1 44% 2 0% 0 647 851 204 3:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 42% 12 27% 6 100% 248 100% 4 78% 1 37% 1 0% 0 640 851 211 4:00 p.m. 75% 325 70% 46 371 42% 12 27% 6 100% 248 100% 4 81% 1 48% 2 0% 0 644 851 207 5:00 p.m. 80% 346 70% 46 392 64% 18 39% 8 100% 248 100% 4 86% 1 64% 3 0% 0 674 851 177 6:00 p.m. 85% 368 40% 26 394 87% 24 71% 15 100% 248 100% 4 84% 1 90% 4 0% 0 690 851 161 7:00 p.m. 85% 368 20% 13 381 79% 22 100% 21 100% 248 50% 2 79% 1 100% 4 0% 0 679 851 172 8:00 p.m. 90% 390 20% 13 403 65% 18 97% 20 100% 248 30% 1 70% 1 89% 4 0% 0 695 851 156 9:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 42% 12 0% 0 50% 124 30% 1 0% 0 71% 3 0% 0 564 851 287 10:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 21% 6 0% 0 30% 74 0% 0 0% 0 56% 2 0% 0 506 851 345 11:00 p.m. 100% 433 10% 7 440 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 440 851 411 12:00 a.m. 100% 433 5% 3 436 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 436 851 415 (a) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Guests - Weekday. (b) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Family (Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner)) - Friday (#932). (c) ITE time-of-day factors for Quality Restaurant - Weekday (#931). (d) Time-of-Day factors assume banquets could occur from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests; spa hours assumed from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (f) ITE time-of-day factors for Shopping Center - Friday Non-December (#820). (g) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Lounge of Bar - Saturday (#932). (h) ITE time-of-day factors for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Weekday (#936). (i) Parking provided assumes parking configuration has been completed. Also assumes 71 valet spaces. (j) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Employees - Weekday.

Parking
Provided (i)
Available
Parking
Banquet Spa/Salon Retail Wine Tasting/Bar Java Café Total Shared Parking Demand

WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Land Use
The Set Restaurant (c)
Hotel Guests Hotel Employees The Roundhouse Restaurant The Set Restaurant Item III.B Page 87 of 388
HILTON HOTEL PROJECT (#22012) - WEEKEND PEAK PARKING DEMAND FORECASTS SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS - ITE DEMAND RATES/ULI TIME-OF-DAY FACTORS (45%-70% INTERNAL CAPTURE) 433 ROOMS Size Units Parking Rate Internal Capture
Peak
Demand
Hotel Guests (a) 433 Rooms 1.00 100% 433
Hotel Employees (a) 433 Rooms 0.15 100% 65
The Roundhouse Restaurant (b) 207 Seats 0.43 70% 27
146 Seats 0.46 70% 20
Banquet (d) 24.808 KSF 18.14 45% 248
Spa/Salon (e) 14 Rooms 1.00 70% 4
Retail (f) 0.957 KSF 2.91 70% 1
Wine Tasting Room & Bar(b) 29 Seats 0.43 70% 4
Java Cafe (g) 22 Seats 0.34 70% 2
(a) ULI rate Leisure Hotel Weekend.
(b) ITE rate High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant w/ Bar-Lounge - Saturday (#932). (c) ITE rate Quality Restaurant - Saturday (#931).
(d) ULI Parking Ratio for Meeting/Banquet Space - Weekday (To be Conservative). (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests.
(f) ITE rate Shopping Center Non-December (#820) - Saturday. (g) ITE rate Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Saturday (#936).

Time of Day Hotel Total
Peak Demand Hourly % (a) 433 Hourly % (j) 65 498 Hourly % (b) 27 Hourly % (c) 20 Hourly % (d) 248 Hourly % (e) 4 Hourly % (f) 1 Hourly % (g) 4 Hourly % (h) 2 6:00 a.m. 95% 411 10% 7 418 15% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 422 851 429 7:00 a.m. 95% 411 30% 20 431 28% 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 2 441 851 410 8:00 a.m. 90% 390 100% 65 455 52% 14 0% 0 50% 124 50% 2 27% 0 0% 0 90% 2 597 851 254 9:00 a.m. 80% 346 100% 65 411 75% 20 0% 0 100% 248 100% 4 46% 0 0% 0 80% 2 685 851 166 10:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 91% 25 0% 0 100% 248 100% 4 67% 1 15% 1 65% 1 648 851 203 11:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 100% 27 11% 2 100% 248 100% 4 85% 1 23% 1 62% 1 652 851 199 12:00 Noon 65% 281 100% 65 346 90% 24 37% 7 100% 248 100% 4 95% 1 37% 1 40% 1 632 851 219 1:00 p.m. 65% 281 100% 65 346 80% 22 54% 11 100% 248 100% 4 100% 1 50% 2 32% 1 635 851 216 2:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 67% 18 29% 6 100% 248 100% 4 98% 1 44% 2 0% 0 647 851 204 3:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 45% 12 22% 4 100% 248 100% 4 92% 1 37% 1 0% 0 638 851 213 4:00 p.m. 75% 325 70% 46 371 39% 11 14% 3 100% 248 100% 4 86% 1 48% 2 0% 0 640 851 211 5:00 p.m. 80% 346 70% 46 392 40% 11 18% 4 100% 248 100% 4 79% 1 64% 3 0% 0 663 851 188 6:00 p.m. 85% 368 40% 26 394 40% 11 42% 8 100% 248 100% 4 71% 1 90% 4 0% 0 670 851 181 7:00 p.m. 85% 368 20% 13 381 58% 16 91% 18 100% 248 50% 2 69% 1 100% 4 0% 0 670 851 181 8:00 p.m. 90% 390 20% 13 403 40% 11 100% 20 100% 248 30% 1 60% 1 89% 4 0% 0 688 851 163 9:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 35% 9 0% 0 50% 124 30% 1 51% 1 71% 3 0% 0 562 851 289 10:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 33% 9 0% 0 30% 74 0% 0 38% 0 56% 2 0% 0 509 851 342 11:00 p.m. 100% 433 10% 7 440 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 440 851 411 12:00 a.m. 100% 433 5% 3 436 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 436 851 415 (a) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Guests - Weekend. (b) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Family (Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner)) - Saturday (#932). (c) ITE time-of-day factors for Quality Restaurant - Friday (#931). (d) Time-of-Day factors assume banquets could occur from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests; spa hours assumed from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (f) ITE time-of-day factors for Shopping Center - Saturday Non-December (#820). (g) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Lounge of Bar - Saturday (#932). (h) ITE time-of-day factors for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Saturday (#936). (i) Parking provided assumes parking configuration has been completed. Also assumes 71 valet spaces. (j) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Employees - Weekend.

WEEKEND PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Land Use
The Set Restaurant (c)
Hotel Guests Hotel Employees The Roundhouse Restaurant The Set Restaurant Parking Provided (i)
Available
Parking
Banquet Spa/Salon Retail Wine Tasting/Bar Java Café Total Shared Parking Demand
Item III.B Page 88 of 388
HILTON HOTEL PROJECT (#22012) - WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING DEMAND FORECASTS SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS - ITE DEMAND RATES/ULI TIME-OF-DAY FACTORS (45%-70% INTERNAL CAPTURE) 433 ROOMS & 1,000 GUESTS FOR BANQUETS Size Units Parking Rate
Internal
Capture Peak Demand
Hotel Guests (a) 433 Rooms 1.00 100% 433
Hotel Employees (a) 433 Rooms 0.15 100% 65
The Roundhouse Restaurant (b) 207 Seats 0.45 70% 28
146 Seats 0.47 70% 21
Banquet (d) 1,000 Guests 0.40 100% 400
Spa/Salon (e) 14 Rooms 1.00 70% 4
Retail (f) 0.957 KSF 2.61 70% 1
Wine Tasting Room & Bar(b) 29 Seats 0.45 70% 4
Java Cafe (g) 22 Seats 0.27 70% 2
(a) ULI rate Leisure Hotel Weekday.
(b) ITE rate High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant w/ Bar-Lounge - Friday (#932). (c) ITE rate Quality Restaurant - Friday (#931).
(d) Assumes 1,000 Guests with AVO of 2.5.
(e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests.
(f) ITE rate Shopping Center Non-December (#820) - Friday. (g) ITE rate Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Weekday (#936).

Time of Day Hotel Total
Peak Demand Hourly % (a) 433 Hourly % (j) 65 498 Hourly % (b) 28 Hourly % (c) 21 Hourly % (d) 400 Hourly % (e) 4 Hourly % (f) 1 Hourly % (g) 4 Hourly % (h) 2 6:00 a.m. 95% 411 10% 7 418 10% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 421 851 430 7:00 a.m. 95% 411 30% 20 431 25% 7 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 73% 1 439 851 412 8:00 a.m. 90% 390 100% 65 455 68% 19 0% 0 50% 200 50% 2 32% 0 0% 0 100% 2 678 851 173 9:00 a.m. 80% 346 100% 65 411 72% 20 0% 0 100% 400 100% 4 50% 1 0% 0 63% 1 837 851 14 10:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 77% 22 0% 0 100% 400 100% 4 67% 1 15% 1 57% 1 797 851 54 11:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 83% 23 20% 4 100% 400 100% 4 80% 1 23% 1 42% 1 802 851 49 12:00 Noon 65% 281 100% 65 346 100% 28 51% 11 100% 400 100% 4 100% 1 37% 1 39% 1 792 851 59 1:00 p.m. 65% 281 100% 65 346 91% 25 56% 12 100% 400 100% 4 98% 1 50% 2 27% 1 791 851 60 2:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 56% 16 40% 8 100% 400 100% 4 90% 1 44% 2 0% 0 799 851 52 3:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 42% 12 27% 6 100% 400 100% 4 78% 1 37% 1 0% 0 792 851 59 4:00 p.m. 75% 325 70% 46 371 42% 12 27% 6 100% 400 100% 4 81% 1 48% 2 0% 0 796 851 55 5:00 p.m. 80% 346 70% 46 392 64% 18 39% 8 100% 400 100% 4 86% 1 64% 3 0% 0 826 851 25 6:00 p.m. 85% 368 40% 26 394 87% 24 71% 15 100% 400 100% 4 84% 1 90% 4 0% 0 842 851 9 7:00 p.m. 85% 368 20% 13 381 79% 22 100% 21 100% 400 50% 2 79% 1 100% 4 0% 0 831 851 20 8:00 p.m. 90% 390 20% 13 403 65% 18 97% 20 100% 400 30% 1 70% 1 89% 4 0% 0 847 851 4 9:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 42% 12 0% 0 50% 200 30% 1 0% 0 71% 3 0% 0 640 851 211 10:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 21% 6 0% 0 30% 120 0% 0 0% 0 56% 2 0% 0 552 851 299 11:00 p.m. 100% 433 10% 7 440 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 440 851 411 12:00 a.m. 100% 433 5% 3 436 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 436 851 415 (a) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Guests - Weekday. (b) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Family (Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner)) - Friday (#932). (c) ITE time-of-day factors for Quality Restaurant - Weekday (#931). (d) Time-of-Day factors assume banquets could occur from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests; spa hours assumed from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (f) ITE time-of-day factors for Shopping Center - Friday Non-December (#820). (g) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Lounge of Bar - Saturday (#932). (h) ITE time-of-day factors for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Weekday (#936). (i) Parking provided assumes parking configuration has been completed. Also assumes 71 valet spaces. (j) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Employees - Weekday.

WEEKDAY PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Land Use
The Set Restaurant (c)
Hotel Guests Hotel Employees The Roundhouse Restaurant Total Shared Parking Demand
Parking
Provided (i)
Available
Parking
The Set Restaurant Banquet Spa/Salon Retail Wine Tasting/Bar Java Café Item III.B Page 89 of 388
HILTON HOTEL PROJECT (#22012) - WEEKEND PEAK PARKING DEMAND FORECASTS SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS - ITE DEMAND RATES/ULI TIME-OF-DAY FACTORS (45%-70% INTERNAL CAPTURE) 433 ROOMS & 1,000 GUESTS FOR BANQUETS Size Units Parking Rate Internal Capture
Peak
Demand
Hotel Guests (a) 433 Rooms 1.00 100% 433
Hotel Employees (a) 433 Rooms 0.15 100% 65
The Roundhouse Restaurant (b) 207 Seats 0.43 70% 27
146 Seats 0.46 70% 20
Banquet (d) 1,000 Guests 0.40 100% 400
Spa/Salon (e) 14 Rooms 1.00 70% 4
Retail (f) 0.957 KSF 2.91 70% 1
Wine Tasting Room & Bar(b) 29 Seats 0.43 70% 4
Java Cafe (g) 22 Seats 0.34 70% 2
(a) ULI rate Leisure Hotel Weekend.
(b) ITE rate High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant w/ Bar-Lounge - Saturday (#932). (c) ITE rate Quality Restaurant - Saturday (#931).
(d) Assumes 1,000 Guests with AVO of 2.5.
(e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests.
(f) ITE rate Shopping Center Non-December (#820) - Saturday. (g) ITE rate Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Saturday (#936).

Time of Day Hotel Total
Peak Demand Hourly % (a) 433 Hourly % (j) 65 498 Hourly % (b) 27 Hourly % (c) 20 Hourly % (d) 400 Hourly % (e) 4 Hourly % (f) 1 Hourly % (g) 4 Hourly % (h) 2 6:00 a.m. 95% 411 10% 7 418 15% 4 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 422 851 429 7:00 a.m. 95% 411 30% 20 431 28% 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 100% 2 441 851 410 8:00 a.m. 90% 390 100% 65 455 52% 14 0% 0 50% 200 50% 2 27% 0 0% 0 90% 2 673 851 178 9:00 a.m. 80% 346 100% 65 411 75% 20 0% 0 100% 400 100% 4 46% 0 0% 0 80% 2 837 851 14 10:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 91% 25 0% 0 100% 400 100% 4 67% 1 15% 1 65% 1 800 851 51 11:00 a.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 100% 27 11% 2 100% 400 100% 4 85% 1 23% 1 62% 1 804 851 47 12:00 Noon 65% 281 100% 65 346 90% 24 37% 7 100% 400 100% 4 95% 1 37% 1 40% 1 784 851 67 1:00 p.m. 65% 281 100% 65 346 80% 22 54% 11 100% 400 100% 4 100% 1 50% 2 32% 1 787 851 64 2:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 67% 18 29% 6 100% 400 100% 4 98% 1 44% 2 0% 0 799 851 52 3:00 p.m. 70% 303 100% 65 368 45% 12 22% 4 100% 400 100% 4 92% 1 37% 1 0% 0 790 851 61 4:00 p.m. 75% 325 70% 46 371 39% 11 14% 3 100% 400 100% 4 86% 1 48% 2 0% 0 792 851 59 5:00 p.m. 80% 346 70% 46 392 40% 11 18% 4 100% 400 100% 4 79% 1 64% 3 0% 0 815 851 36 6:00 p.m. 85% 368 40% 26 394 40% 11 42% 8 100% 400 100% 4 71% 1 90% 4 0% 0 822 851 29 7:00 p.m. 85% 368 20% 13 381 58% 16 91% 18 100% 400 50% 2 69% 1 100% 4 0% 0 822 851 29 8:00 p.m. 90% 390 20% 13 403 40% 11 100% 20 100% 400 30% 1 60% 1 89% 4 0% 0 840 851 11 9:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 35% 9 0% 0 50% 200 30% 1 51% 1 71% 3 0% 0 638 851 213 10:00 p.m. 95% 411 20% 13 424 33% 9 0% 0 30% 120 0% 0 38% 0 56% 2 0% 0 555 851 296 11:00 p.m. 100% 433 10% 7 440 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 440 851 411 12:00 a.m. 100% 433 5% 3 436 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 436 851 415 (a) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Guests - Weekend. (b) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Family (Breakfast, Lunch, and Dinner)) - Saturday (#932). (c) ITE time-of-day factors for Quality Restaurant - Friday (#931). (d) Time-of-Day factors assume banquets could occur from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (e) Assumes 4 rooms are occupied by non-hotel guests; spa hours assumed from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM (f) ITE time-of-day factors for Shopping Center - Saturday Non-December (#820). (g) ITE time-of-day factors for High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant - Lounge of Bar - Saturday (#932). (h) ITE time-of-day factors for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window - Saturday (#936). (i) Parking provided assumes parking configuration has been completed. Also assumes 71 valet spaces. (j) ULI time-of-day factors for Leisure Hotel Employees - Weekend.

WEEKEND PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS
Land Use
The Set Restaurant (c)
Hotel Guests Hotel Employees The Roundhouse Restaurant Total Shared Parking Demand
Parking
Provided (i)
Available
Parking
The Set Restaurant Banquet Spa/Salon Retail Wine Tasting/Bar Java Café Item III.B Page 90 of 388
EXHIBIT F Item III.B Page 91 of 388
Item III.B Page 92 of 388
Item III.B Page 93 of 388
Item III.B Page 94 of 388
Item III.B Page 95 of 388
Item III.B Page 96 of 388
Item III.B Page 97 of 388
Item III.B Page 98 of 388
Item III.B Page 99 of 388
Item III.B Page 100 of 388
Item III.B Page 101 of 388
Item III.B Page 102 of 388
Item III.B Page 103 of 388
Item III.B Page 104 of 388
Item III.B Page 105 of 388
Item III.B Page 106 of 388
Item III.B Page 107 of 388
Item III.B Page 108 of 388
Item III.B Page 109 of 388
Item III.B Page 110 of 388
Item III.B Page 111 of 388
Item III.B Page 112 of 388
Item III.B Page 113 of 388
Item III.B Page 114 of 388
Item III.B Page 115 of 388
Item III.B Page 116 of 388
Item III.B Page 117 of 388
Item III.B Page 118 of 388
Item III.B Page 119 of 388
Item III.B Page 120 of 388
Item III.B Page 121 of 388
Item III.B Page 122 of 388
Item III.B Page 123 of 388
Item III.B Page 124 of 388
Item III.B Page 125 of 388
Item III.B Page 126 of 388
Item III.B Page 127 of 388
Item III.B Page 128 of 388
Item III.B Page 129 of 388
Item III.B Page 130 of 388
Item III.B Page 131 of 388
Item III.B Page 132 of 388
Item III.B Page 133 of 388
Item III.B Page 134 of 388
Item III.B Page 135 of 388
Item III.B Page 136 of 388
Item III.B Page 137 of 388
Item III.B Page 138 of 388
Item III.B Page 139 of 388
Item III.B Page 140 of 388
Item III.B Page 141 of 388
Item III.B Page 142 of 388
Item III.B Page 143 of 388
Item III.B Page 144 of 388
1 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
PARK PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1) (RESOLUTION NO. 94-030) 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd.

Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
PLN2022-00443
May 15, 2025

PERMITTED USES
The project site is located on Parcel A of the Park Plan Specific Plan. The uses allowed on Parcel A include hotels, and the following in conjunction with a hotel: conference center, restaurants, cocktail lounges; stores and shops; health club; recreational facilities; automobile rentals; bicycle rentals; and ancillary uses related to the hotel operation including but not limited to employee cafeteria, kitchens, restrooms, lobby, storage, and administrative offices. These uses are the same as allowed in the HRC-1 zone. Parcel A also allows recreational/open space and public parking. Residential uses are not allowed. The existing hotel and the proposed project is consistent with the permitted uses in both the Specific Plan and the HRC-1 zone.

DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the development regulations of the Park Plaza Specific Plan, as discussed below.

A. Deficiency Point System

1. Traffic and Circulation: The deficiency point system (further described in the City’s prior Coastal Land Use Plan), is no longer applicable because the crosstown freeway project (Highway 101) was completed.

2. Parking: Parking needs may be evaluated on a site/ use-specific basis. Parking must meet peak parking needs. If the parking needs are less than the minimum ordinance requirements, a Parking Modification may be approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, the peak parking needs are less than the ordinance requirement and a Parking Modification is requested. See Parking Modification section above. In addition, the developer shall waive the right to protest the formation of a waterfront area parking district. This has been added as a condition of approval.

3. Alternative Transportation Incentives: An updated Visitor Information Program is required to be submitted and implemented by the hotel. The required details of the program are included in the conditions of approval. Also, the hotel is required to comply with an updated Transportation Demand Management program that includes shuttle service, bicycle parking, ride sharing, etc. This requirement is also included in the conditions of approval. Free bus passes, carpool spaces, showers, lockers, and secure bicycle spaces are available for employees. Bicycle rentals are provided for hotel guests.

4. Public Improvements: Substantial public improvements have been installed as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan, including the extension of Salsipuedes St. (now called S. Calle Cesar Chavez) to E. Cabrillo Blvd. Public improvements for the proposed project include widening of the sidewalk and parkway along S. Calle Cesar Chavez. No public improvements are required along E. Cabrillo Blvd. A northbound left-turn on S. Calle Cesar Chavez will be completed as part of the Waterfront Hotel project.

EXHIBIT G Item III.B Page 145 of 388
2 B. Visual and Aesthetics

1. Building Setbacks: The front setback requirement is 120 feet for one-story buildings and parking facilities, and 180 feet for two-story buildings. The Specific Plan does not specify a required setback for a three-story building; however, the new three-story building, allowed with a “height setback relation study” as discussed below, meets the 180-foot setback from E. Cabrillo Blvd., and the third story portion of the building is setback even further. The setback from Salsipuedes St. (now called S. Calle Cesar Chavez) is 33.5 feet. The proposed project is consistent with the setback requirements.

2. Landscaping: All proposed landscaping would conform to the requirements of the Specific Plan, including the use of drought tolerant species, and the compatibility with other landscaping on E.

Cabrillo Blvd. The Historic Landmarks Commission reviewed the landscape plan on May 10, 2023, and stated that the landscaping is appropriate, as noted in the HLC minutes.

3. Building Height: The Specific Plan has a maximum building height limitation of 2 stories not to exceed 30 feet, or applicants may provide a “height setback relation study” for the purpose of maximizing view protection/enhancement and creation of contiguous open space areas. If an applicant chooses to use this method to determine building height, in no case shall any building exceed 3 stories and 45 feet. (The HRC-1 zone height limit is 3 stories and 45 feet.) The Specific Plan states that the determination to allow increased height based on a height setback relation study shall be made by the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Commission.

The proposed addition would be 3 stories and a maximum height of 31’-6”. The project plans include a neighborhood context analysis indicating the number of stories for hotel buildings in the vicinity, and a view corridor study (height-setback relation study) demonstrating that the new addition would not negatively impact views of the mountains from Cabrillo Blvd. or the beach. The Historic Landmarks Commission found that there were no negative impacts to the view corridor and the design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas, as noted in the HLC minutes.

4. Architectural Design: The project is subject to review by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) to ensure that the architectural design, scale, and character are reflective of the character of the El Pueblo Viejo District. The Historic Landmarks Commission reviewed the design on May 10, 2023 and noted that the design is compatible with the distinctive characteristics of Santa Barbara, as noted in the HLC minutes.

5. View Corridors/ Distance between Buildings: Views are to be assessed from Cabrillo Blvd. towards the foothills and mountains. The HLC shall advise the Planning Commission on the determination of view corridors. The Historic Landmarks Commission found that there were no impacts to the view corridor and the design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas, as noted in the HLC minutes.

6. Signs: No signs are currently proposed; however, all new signs will be subject to SBMC section

22.70 and would be minimal, clear and unobtrusive and be complementary to other signs within the Specific Plan area.

7. Other Regulations: The project will comply with all regulations regarding underground utilities and outdoor lighting, as applicable.

Item III.B Page 146 of 388
3 C. Recreational and Open Space
A condition of development of a hotel/conference center on Parcel A was the dedication and improvement of a park site. This condition was met by the Parker Family deeding land to the City for a park at Parcel C.

D. Geology and Drainage
A Geotechnical Engineering Report is required for the project as part of the building permit submittal. The report will identify the measures needed to meet the intent of City policies regarding hazard reduction, including liquefaction, expansive soils, erosion potential, and groundwater. The project is required to follow the recommendations of the report.

A Preliminary Drainage and Storm Water Compliance Report (Flowers & Associates, Inc., May 2024) was prepared for the project. The report demonstrates that the project meets the City’s Tier 4 Storm Water Management Program requirements for water quality treatment, peak runoff discharge rate, and volume reduction for the project site and Tier 3 in the Right-Of-Way. Onsite stormwater BMPs include catch basin filters, downspout filters, and 13 underground stormwater chambers.

Right-Of-Way stormwater BMPs include inlet filers and an underground stormwater chamber. The project is required to follow all requirements of the report.

E. Housing
The original 1981 Specific Plan included the following development regulation: “Development proposals for Parcels A, B or C shall be accompanied by an analysis of short-term and long-term impacts upon the City’s housing stock as discussed in the Final EIR. The study, at a minimum, shall develop strategies and programs to minimize any potential adverse impacts.” The 1994 Amended Specific Plan revised this section as follows: “Development proposals for Parcels A, B or C are required to mitigate any impact the project may have on the City’s housing stock through the creation of new affordable housing as required by SBMC Chapter 28.87.300.” When the Specific Plan was amended, SBMC §28.87.300 referred to the Development Plan findings in the Nonresidential Growth Management Program (GMP) Ordinance (GMP is now in SBMC Chapter 28.85). At that time, one of the required findings was “The proposed development will not have a significant unmitigated adverse impact upon City and South Coast affordable housing stock”. This finding was removed when the new GMP Ordinance was adopted in March 2013, in recognition that the updated General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report provided direction to work towards a better balance of uses overall rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Because of this, staff has determined that development in the Park Plaza Specific Plan area would no longer be required to mitigate housing impacts based on this development regulation.

Also, it is important to note that the City’s Housing Mitigation Ordinance was repealed in 1995 and conditions on approved projects requiring affordable housing construction or in-lieu fees (including the Waterfront Hotel) were eliminated at that time. Housing is also discussed in the Environmental Impact Report Addendum, attached to the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

F. Public Service
Water Conservation. Development of Parcels A, B, and C is limited to a maximum water consumption of 2.4 acre feet per year per acre (2.4 AFY/acre). The developer is required to provide data to ensure compliance, based on this provision, and based on water consumption standards approved by the Public Works Department.

Item III.B Page 147 of 388
4 The Water Use Analysis Memo (Flowers & Assoc., Inc., 8/26/2024) calculates that the 23.556-acre project site is limited to approximately 56.5 AFY (23.556 acres X 2.4-AFY/acre). The annual water use was estimated to be 55.8 AFY or 2.37 AFY/acre. Documentation that the project would require less than 56.5 AFY has been added as a condition of approval.

Water conservation fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping would also be required. The project would meet all requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code, also referred to as CALGreen, which exceed the requirements of the Specific Plan.

Fire, Security, and Safety Protection. A Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan is required, and the proposed project must meet all current requirements regarding fire, security, and safety protection, including adequate fire flow pressure, fire retardant buildings and landscaping, and security systems.

The plan would also address other safety issues such as tsunami hazards, earthquakes, hazardous materials, and train derailment. The requirement for an updated Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan has been added as a condition of approval.

G. Noise Protection
Building construction methods shall be utilized to attain interior noise levels no greater than 45dBA.

This is also a requirement of the California Building Code that must be followed for the project.

H. Energy Conservation
Electrical and Lighting, Natural Gas. A detailed energy conservation plan that minimizes use of unnecessary lighting, electricity, and natural gas, and utilizes solar design features, where feasible, is required. The project would meet all requirements of CALGreen, which includes measures for energy conservation. An updated energy conservation plan is required as a condition of approval.

Item III.B Page 148 of 388

EXHIBIT H

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. Cabrillo Blvd.

Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort
PLN2022-00443
May 15, 2025

COASTAL LAND USE PLAN & COASTAL ACT POLICIES

PUBLIC ACCESS

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30252 The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
Manage Parking & Circulation
CLUP 3.1-29 Off-Street Parking for New Development and Substantial Redevelopment.

A. Parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance are designed to ensure sufficient off-street parking is provided for new development and substantial redevelopment so as to avoid significant adverse impacts to public access to the shoreline and coastal recreation areas. Off-street parking for new development and substantial redevelopment, therefore, shall be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.

B. Zoning modifications to allow reduced off-street parking in the West Beach, Lower State, and East Beach Component Areas shall only be approved if a project specific evaluation of parking demand shows that the reduced parking will provide for the anticipated parking demand generated by the development. In determining parking demand, the following may be considered: proximity to transit facilities; mix of uses in the immediate area; offsite parking agreements; and provisions of a transportation demand management plan where it is demonstrated that the plan’s measures will sufficiently reduce the demand for parking.

Item III.B Page 149 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 9

VISITOR SERVING & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30213 Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. The commission shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
CLUP 3.2-12 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities. As outlined in Coastal Act Section 30213, lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.

The City shall not: (1) require that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor-serving facility located on either public or private lands; or (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities.

CLUP 3.2-14 New Hotel and Motel Development. New or substantially redeveloped hotel/motel development within the Coastal Zone shall, where feasible, provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. Likewise, lower cost restaurants, or restaurants that provide a wide range of prices, are encouraged.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30240 (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

Item III.B Page 150 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 3 OF 9

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
Birds
CLUP 4.1-36 Bird Breeding and Nesting.

A. Activities that could impact nesting or breeding birds (including tree trimming, tree removal, construction activities, noise, vibration, or lighting) within or adjoining ESHAs, creeks, wetlands, special wildlife areas, or known nesting or breeding areas shall be prohibited during the nesting and breeding season for birds (February 1-August 30) where feasible.

B. If it is not feasible to complete such work outside the bird nesting and breeding season, then work may be approved subject to a condition requiring bird nesting and breeding surveys. These surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than fourteen calendar days prior to the start of any activities that could impact nesting or breeding birds. If active nesting or breeding is found, activities that could impact the nesting birds shall be prohibited until any active nest is vacated. If any activities must occur to remediate an imminent danger, measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds.

C. In the event that an active nest not previously identified is discovered during any tree trimming, tree removal, or construction activity, the contractor shall immediately cease all activities in the area of operations and shall notify the City’s Environmental Analyst. Thereafter, a qualified biologist must inspect the site and follow the abovementioned procedures to protect the nesting birds.

WATER QUALITY

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30231 The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
Storm Water Management
CLUP 4.2-22 Storm Water Management. All development shall be planned, sited, and designed to protect the water quality and hydrology of coastal waters in accordance with the requirements of Item III.B Page 151 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 4 OF 9
the City’s Storm Water Management Program, approved by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board under California’s statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2013-0001 DWQ, effective July 1, 2013, or any amendment to or re-issuance thereof).

SCENIC RESOURCES & VISUAL QUALITY

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30251 The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
General
CLUP 4.3-3 Design Review. Development in the Coastal Zone shall be reviewed by the Architectural Board of Review, Historic Landmarks Commission, or Single Family Design Board in accordance with established rules and procedures, as applicable. If any of the rules, procedures, or actions of these design review boards/commissions conflict with the policies of the Coastal LUP, the policies of the Coastal LUP shall take precedence.

CLUP 4.3-4 Visual Evaluation Requirement. A site-specific visual evaluation shall be required for new development and substantial redevelopment that has the potential to impact scenic resources or public scenic views. The visual evaluation shall be used to evaluate the magnitude and significance of changes in appearance of scenic resources or public scenic views as a result of development.

Siting, Design, and Review
CLUP 4.3-5 Protection of Scenic Resources and Public Scenic Views. Development shall be sited and designed to avoid impacts to scenic resources and public scenic views. If there is no feasible alternative that can avoid impacts to scenic resources or public scenic views, then the alternative that would result in the least adverse impact to scenic resources and public scenic views that would not result in additional adverse impacts to other coastal resources shall be required. Methods to mitigate impacts could include, but not be limited to: siting development in the least visible portion of the site, managing building orientation, breaking up the mass of new structures, designing structures to blend into the natural setting, Item III.B Page 152 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 5 OF 9
restricting the building maximum size, reducing maximum height standards, clustering building sites and development, requiring a view corridor, eliminating accessory structures not requisite to the primary use, minimizing grading, minimizing removal of native vegetation, incorporating landscape elements or screening, incorporating additional or increased setbacks, stepping the height of buildings so that the heights of building elements are lower closer to public viewing areas and increase with distance from the public viewing area. Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of the feasible project alternative that would avoid impacts to visual resources, public scenic views, or public viewing areas.

CLUP 4.3-6 Obstruction of Scenic View Corridors. Development shall not obstruct public scenic view corridors of scenic resources, including those of the ocean viewed from the shoreline and of the upper foothills and mountains viewed respectively from the beach and lower elevations of the City.

CLUP 4.3-7 Compatible Development. Development shall be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas and where appropriate, protect the unique characteristics of areas that are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

COASTAL ACT POLICIES
30244 Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
Archaeology
CLUP 4.4-10 Condition of Approval—Monitoring Requirement. When recommended by a CityQualified Archaeologist (Registered Professional) due to a likelihood of uncovering or otherwise disturbing unknown subsurface archaeological resources, the following mitigation measures shall be a condition of approval of the Coastal Development Permit:

A. Onsite monitoring by a City-Qualified Archaeologist and as appropriate, a CityQualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitor of all grading, excavation, trenching, vegetation or paving removal, ground clearance, and site preparation that involves earthmoving operations;
B. All contractors and construction personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of uncovering unanticipated subsurface archaeological features or artifacts associated with past human occupation of the parcel; and
C. If archaeological resources are encountered or suspected, work shall immediately be halted or redirected to an area with no known archaeological resources, and the City’s Item III.B Page 153 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 6 OF 9
Environmental Analyst shall be notified. The City’s Environmental Analyst shall evaluate the nature, extent, and importance of any discoveries or suspected archaeological resources based upon input from the City’s Archaeological Resources Advisor at the UCSB Department of Anthropology, Native American tribal groups or individuals approved by the Native American Heritage Commission for the area, a City-Qualified Archaeologist (Registered Professional), and/or a City-Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitor, as appropriate. If archaeological resources are determined to be important or unique, the City’s Environmental Analyst shall require a City-Qualified Archaeologist (Registered Professional) to prepare a mitigation plan (which may include but is not limited to a Data Recovery Plan and a Data Recovery Report) and, if feasible, redirect grading and/or excavation activities to an area with no archaeological resources until such time as adequate mitigation measures are implemented to protect or preserve the identified important or unique archaeological resources. The City’s Environmental Analyst shall determine whether the development or mitigation measures require a new or amended Coastal Development Permit.

Activities that may adversely impact these resources shall not resume without written authorization from the City’s Environmental Analyst that construction may proceed.

If a discovery consists of possible human remains, all work in the area shall be immediately halted, and the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted. A Barbareño Chumash representative from the most current City-Qualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitors List shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. The City’s Environmental Analyst shall determine whether the development or mitigation measures require a new or amended Coastal Development Permit. Activities that may adversely impact these resources shall not resume without written authorization.

COASTAL HAZARDS

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW POLICIES
Geologic & Seismic Hazards
CLUP 5.1-25 Tsunami (Seismic Sea Waves) and Seiche Permit Conditions. Coastal Development Permits for new development and substantial redevelopment in areas designated as a tsunami hazard zone or a seiche hazard area shall include conditions that require:

A. The owner acknowledges that:
i. The project site may be subject to hazards from tsunamis and/or seiches; ii. The applicant assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development; and
iii. The owner waives any claim of damage or liability against the City for injury or damage from such hazards.

Item III.B Page 154 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 7 OF 9
B. In the event of a tsunami and/or seiche hazard event that damages the development, the owner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development from the beach and the ocean and lawfully dispose of the material at an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require authorization through an emergency and/or regular Coastal Development Permit process; and
C. The owner shall record a deed restriction, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney, reflecting the conditions listed above.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
LAND USE ELEMENT (2011)

COMMUNITY DESIGN
LG12.2 Building Size, Bulk and Scale. Ensure that proposed buildings are compatible in scale with the surrounding built environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT (2011, 1994, 1983, 1979) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (2011)

ENERGY CONSERVATION
ER5.1 Energy Efficient Buildings. Encourage all new construction to be designed and built consistent with City green programs, the California Green Building Code, policies, and the goal of achieving “carbon neutrality” by 2030 in all buildings.

ER6.6 Solar Energy. Encourage the use of solar photo-voltaic arrays on new construction, redevelopment, and significant remodel projects, as appropriate, taking into consideration project scale and budget, building size, orientation, roof type, and current energy use.

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
ER29 Visual Resources Protection. New development or redevelopment shall preserve or enhance important public views and viewpoints for public enjoyment, where such protection would not preclude reasonable development of a property.

CONSERVATION (1979, 1994)
VISUAL RESOURCES (“V”)
V3.0 New development shall not obstruct scenic view corridors, including those of the ocean and lower elevations of the City viewed respectively from the shoreline and upper foothills, and of the upper foothills and mountains viewed respectively from the beach and lower elevations of the City.

Item III.B Page 155 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 8 OF 9
V3.2 The northerly side of Cabrillo Boulevard from Castillo Street to Los Patos Way should be designated a special design review district. Restrictions should be developed for this district which establish setbacks and height limitations formulated to ensure the preservation of views and view corridors from the beach toward the mountains.

CIRCULATION ELEMENT (2011, 1997, 1974, 1964)
CIRCULATION (2011)

CIRCULATION
C6.3 Transit Pass Program.

Encourage employer paid transit passes to be provided as part of the conditions of approval

PARKING
C7.7 Bicycle Parking and Other Needs. Require all multi-family and commercial projects to be designed to meet the needs of bicyclists (e.g., secure parking, storage, lockers, showers, etc.) CIRCULATION (1997, 1964) (“CE”)

DESIGN STANDARDS
CE5.4.2 Provide parkways or tree wells and develop other innovative methods where appropriate to separate and/or protect pedestrians from traffic.

LAND USE AND ZONING
CE5.7.1 Include sidewalks, landscaping, and other facilities in new public and private construction to promote pedestrian activity where appropriate and consistent with the policies contained in this element.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS
CE7.4.1 Incorporate innovative design standards, such as tandem parking, stacked parking, and valet parking.

SAFETY ELEMENT (2013)

GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS
S13 Liquefaction. Site preparation and foundation design recommendations identified by City approved project-specific soils investigations shall be included in proposed building plans.

These may include measures such as excavation of liquefiable soils and recompaction, densification of soils, and/or specific foundation and structure designs.

Item III.B Page 156 of 388

APPLICABLE POLICIES
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 9 OF 9
S14 Tsunami (Seismic sea waves). New development in areas designated as a tsunami hazard zone shall be designed to minimize the potential for tsunami-related damage to the extent possible.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
S62 Development on Sites with Contaminated Soils and High Groundwater. New development in areas of high groundwater and high potential for contaminated soils or contaminated groundwater shall incorporate appropriate vapor control measures into the design of buildings.

Control measures may include measures such as vapor barriers, passive air ventilation systems, sealing of ducts and cracks, and depressurizing soil below the foundation. New development shall comply with all County, State and Federal regulations regarding contaminated soils.

Item III.B Page 157 of 388
City of Santa Barbara

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION

MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 2022
1:30 P.M.

David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Anthony Grumbine, Chair
Steve Hausz, Vice Chair
Keith Butler
Dennis Doordan
Michael Drury
Cass Ensberg
Ed Lenvik
Justin Manuel
Robert Ooley
ADVISORY MEMBER: Dr. Michael Glassow
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Kristen Sneddon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON: Sheila Lodge
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Nicole Hernandez, Architectural Historian
Barbara Burkhart, Assistant Planner
Mary Ternovskaya, Senior Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
The Full Commission meeting was called to order at 1:32 p.m. by Chair Grumbine.

ATTENDANCE
Commissioners present: Grumbine, Hausz (until 4:00 p.m.), Butler, Doordan, Drury (until 4:45 p.m.), Ensberg (absent 2:28 – 2:37 p.m.), Lenvik, and Manuel (absent 2:37 – 3:52 p.m.)
Commissioners absent: Ooley
Staff present: Kokinda, Burkhart, and Ternovskaya
(2:25PM) NEW ITEM: ONE-TIME PREAPPLICATION CONSULTATION

4. 633 E CABRILLO BLVD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 017-680-013
Zone: HRC-1/S-P-1/S-D-3,HRC-2/S-P-1/S-D-3
Application Number: PRE2022-00042
Owner: Fess Parker-Red Lion Hotel by Santa Barbara JV Holdings LLC; Carl A. Mayfield, Vice President
Applicant: Trish Allen; SEPPS, Inc.
(Property is located within El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, Part I. The project consists of a 48,400 square foot addition to the Hilton Santa Barbara hotel, to allow for 80 additional guest rooms, an adult swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit, lounge area and bar. The area of work is proposed to occur in the northwest corner of the parcel, toward South Calle Cesar Chavez and East Cabrillo Boulevard.) EXHIBIT I Item III.B Page 158 of 388
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes August 17, 2022
One-time Pre-Application Consultation. No final appealable action will take place at this meeting. Project Compatibility Findings would be required for a Project Design Review Approval.

RECUSAL: To avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest, Commissioner Manuel recused himself from hearing this item due to a conflict of interest with the Applicant.

Actual time: 2:37 p.m.

Present: Trish Allen, Applicant, SEPPS; Clay Aurell, Architect, AB Design Studios; and Megan Arciniega, Project Planner, City of Santa Barbara
Staff comments: Ms. Arciniega stated that this is a pre-application review. The project will go before the Planning Commission for a Coastal Development Permit. Today’s purpose is to get feedback on design, as the project is in a sensitive area. She is available to answer any questions.

Public comment opened at 2:53 p.m., and as no one wished to speak, it closed.

Written correspondence from Judy Williams was acknowledged.

Commission comments:
• In general, the Commission is supportive of additional development in this general area for this project. This initial massing stage is important to get right. • No Commissioners are opposed to the third story in this location, but the Commission needs to see how it will play out in the massing.
• The view shed study is very important. Particularly for photograph #7, taking the same views from sidewalk would be important. Overlaying the three-dimensional (3D) model of the massing from that view as well as views along the sidewalk is important for the Commission to see. • Provide aerial views that show how things will look in full 3D, not just looking from the mountain side.
• Study recessing the third floor further back and see how it impacts views of the mountains from the sidewalk.
• In general, the project needs more romance and/or poetry. Perhaps simplifying the project is a way of getting there. With the current design and elevation proposed, the project appears too busy and complex.
• One Commissioner does not believe that the architecture for the addition should be different than the existing architecture. At least two other Commissioner find that they can support the idea of the architecture being subtly different, but still of a Spanish Colonial Revival style. Look at the Waterfront across the street as a reference and provide a sympathetic Spanish Colonial Revival style that is simpler than what is currently proposed.
• This proposed portion of the project becomes the front of the hotel and a major symbol of the hotel, therefore it is important to get it right.
• One Commissioner is in favor of more color and striped awnings. • The existing pattern of the building separated by space is encouraged and at least several Commissioners feel this way.

Item III.B Page 159 of 388
City of Santa Barbara

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION

MINUTES
MAY 10, 2023
1:30 P.M.

David Gebhard Public Meeting Room
630 Garden Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Anthony Grumbine, Chair
Steve Hausz, Vice Chair
Keith Butler
Dennis Doordan
Michael Drury
Cass Ensberg
Ed Lenvik
Charles McClure
Robert Ooley
ADVISORY MEMBER: Dr. Michael Glassow
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Kristen Sneddon
PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON: Sheila Lodge
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Ellen Kokinda, Design Review Supervisor
Nicole Hernandez, Architectural Historian
Heidi Reidel, Assistant Planner
Kira Esparza, Commission Secretary

CALL TO ORDER
The Full Commission meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Hausz.

ATTENDANCE
Commissioners present: Hausz, Butler, Doordan, Drury, Ensberg, Lenvik, Ooley, and McClure Commissioners absent: Grumbine
Staff present: Kokinda (until 1:42 p.m.), Megan Arciniega, Project Planner (from 1:42 p.m.- 3:27 p.m.), Reidel, and Esparza
(1:45PM) NEW ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW

1. 633 E CABRILLO BLVD
Assessor's Parcel Number: 017-680-013
Zone: HRC-1/S-P-1/S-D-3, HRC-2/S-P-1/S-D-3
Application Number: PLN2022-00443
Owner: Fess Parker Doubletree Hotel
Carl A. Mayfield, Vice President
Applicant: Trish Allen, SEPPS, Inc.
(Located in El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, Part I. Proposal for a 50,065 square foot addition to Building B (Bougainvillea), resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms to the Hilton Santa Barbara hotel. Project includes removal of the existing 4,700 square foot Building A (Azalea) to make way for the following improvements: an adult swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area, and bar. Project also proposes removal of the existing tennis courts and 240 square foot structure housing the current tennis shop. Project will require Planning Commission approval of a Development Plan.) Item III.B Page 160 of 388
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes May 10, 2023
No final appealable action will take place at this meeting. Project Compatibility Findings will be required for Project Design Approval.

Actual time: 1:42 p.m.

Present: Clay Aurell, Architect, AB Design Studio; Rob Maday, Landscape Architect, Bosky Landscape Architecture; and Megan Arciniega, Project Planner, City of Santa Barbara Staff comments: Ms. Arciniega explained the history of the project, the purview of the Commission, and the comments that would be beneficial for when the project goes to the Planning Commission.

Public comment opened at 2:22 p.m.

The following individuals spoke:

1. Manley McNinch

2. Alex Perez
Written correspondence from Stephanie Papayanis, on behalf of Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 2:26 p.m.

Motion: Continue to the Planning Commission with the following comments:

1. The Commission appreciates the thorough presentation and appreciates the Applicant addressing the comments from the previous review.

2. The Commission is split on the proposed removal of the lawn. Some commissioners believe the lawn should remain to keep the continuity of the existing appearance.

3. Some Commissioners feel the lanai pools are not necessary or are potentially a hazard.

4. There is general support for the location of the main pool, although at least one Commissioner is opposed to the location of the main pool.

5. There is little support for the stone material of the middle hinge element. It is an important element that needs to be restudied as it has a great opportunity to distinguish the building. Study if the hinge element should be taller than the main roof ridge instead of lower.

6. Study adding awnings to add color to the project.

7. The windows and doors should have divided lights, including on the central hinge element.

8. Study if the windows on the central hinge element should be operable windows.

9. Continue the pattern of the palm plantings across the front of the project.

10.The Commission finds the view corridors are supportable as proposed. There are no negative impacts to the view corridor.

11.The Project Compatibility Analysis Findings have provisionally been met (per SBMC

30.220.020.F.) as follows:
a. The project’s design is consistent with design guidelines applicable to its location within the City.
b. The design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project.

Item III.B Page 161 of 388
Historic Landmarks Commission Minutes May 10, 2023
c. The size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate. d. The design of the project is appropriately sensitive to adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources.
e. The design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas.
f. The amount of open space and landscaping is appropriate.

Action: Ensberg/Ooley, 8/0/0. (Grumbine absent.) Motion carried. * MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:27 P.M. *
Item III.B Page 162 of 388
Addendum- Page 1

ADDENDUM

TO PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS
PARK PLAZA FINAL EIR (1979);
WATERFRONT PARK, HOTEL AND YOUTH HOSTEL PROJECT FINAL EIR (SCH #92091038) (1993); RED LION RESORT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SCH #95121040) (1996); AND DOUBLETREE RESORT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SCH #2001081069) (2003)

FOR THE
HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT, PLN2022-00443
633 E. CABRILLO BLVD.

MAY 15, 2025
This Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. An addendum to a previously certified EIR has been prepared because some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, including no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; no significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; and no significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

In addition, there are no mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, that the project proponents decline to adopt; and there are no mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, that the project proponents decline to adopt.

The decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 is based on substantial evidence, as shown in the attached environmental checklist. CEQA Guidelines provide that an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be attached to the final EIR. The Planning Commission shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the hotel expansion project.

EXHIBIT J Item III.B Page 163 of 388
Addendum- Page 2

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The following is a discussion of the four Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that have been prepared for development in the Park Plaza Specific Plan area. The Park Plaza EIR (1979) directly analyzes the hotel and conference center on Parcel A.

The Red Lion SIER (1996) and the Doubletree EIR (2003) also analyze the hotel and conference center but focus mainly on operational changes to the hotel. The Waterfront Hotel EIR (1993) primarily focuses on the Amendments to the Specific Plan, the proposed hotel for Parcel B, and park for Parcel C. However, the Waterfront Hotel is directly tied to the Hilton project because the current project involves a transfer of existing development rights (nonresidential square footage) from the approved Waterfront Hotel to the Hilton project, and there is a parking easement agreement between the properties.

Several Addenda to the Waterfront Hotel EIR were prepared, as discussed below.

A project specific analysis of the Hilton project was also conducted, as shown in the attached environmental checklist. No potentially significant impacts were identified. The only mitigation measures (from the Waterfront Hotel EIR) that would apply to the Hilton project are those related to Archaeological Monitoring.

Park Plaza Environmental Impact Report (Earth Metrics, August 31, 1979) The Park Plaza Environmental Impact Report (Park Plaza EIR) evaluated a proposed project that included an application for a Specific Plan, subdivision to create three lots (Parcels A, B, and C), Development Plan for a hotel and conference center, Parking Modification, Zone Change, and General Plan Amendment. The Park Plaza EIR evaluated a 500-room hotel and conference center, 200 condominium units with underground parking, Chase Palm Park expansion, and optional senior housing complex. The City Council certified the Park Plaza EIR on July 28, 1981.

Potentially significant adverse impacts were identified for circulation and parking, visual and aesthetic concerns, recreation, housing, cultural resources, geology and topography, noise, air quality and meteorology, energy, economics, public services and utilities. Mitigation measures were identified that would partially or fully mitigate the impacts. Impacts that would not be mitigated include: increased vehicle miles; constraint to expansion of Chase Palm Park; demolition of the Roundhouse (a possible historic resource); energy consumption; water consumption; increased vehicle emissions; reduction of scenic views; additional use of park facilities by hotel guests, conferees, and condominium residents; and unpredictable growth impacts.

Of the areas analyzed in the Park Plaza EIR, only the hotel and conference center was developed. In 1986, in accordance with the Park Plaza Specific Plan, the Parker family constructed a 360-room hotel and conference center on Parcel A. In conjunction with the hotel development, a public parking lot with 17 parking spaces was developed along the west side of S. Milpas Street, and approximately 2.1 acres of land was provided as public open space in front of the hotel along E.

Cabrillo Blvd.

Waterfront Park, Hotel And Youth Hostel Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #92091038) (Interface, June 18, 1993)
The Waterfront Park, Hotel And Youth Hostel Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Waterfront Hotel EIR) evaluated Amendments to the Specific Plan, the development of a 150-room hotel on Parcel B (Waterfront Hotel) and a park on Parcel C (Chase Palm Park), as well as the development of a 100-bed youth hostel (a lower-cost overnight accommodation).

The Waterfront Hotel EIR identified significant unavoidable parking, air quality, noise and vibration and visual resources impacts. No feasible mitigation measures were identified which could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Changes and/or alterations were required to avoid or substantially lessen the following significant effects identified in the EIR: long term air quality impacts, short and long term traffic and noise impacts, long term visual resources impacts, biological resources impacts, risk of upset impacts and hazardous materials impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was made for short term parking impact for the park, short term air quality impacts, short and long term noise impacts, and short term visual resources impacts sufficiently to justify approval of the project.

Item III.B Page 164 of 388
Addendum- Page 3
Since the certification of the Waterfront Hotel EIR in 1993, several Substantial Conformance Determinations were made and several Addenda to the EIR were prepared. Previous Addenda to the Waterfront Hotel EIR dated June 8, 1995; November 7, 1996; August 30, 2007; July 16, 2015; December 15, 2015; January 14, 2016; and June 4, 2018 were prepared for project refinements, including moving a portion of hotel parking to a separate parcel at 103 South Calle Cesar Chavez Street, and incorporating wetland habitat restoration on that site.

On July 1, 2020, the project revisions included reducing the number of hotel rooms to 86 and moving the valet parking lot to 103 South Calle Cesar Chavez (parking lot parcel) and 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. (existing Hilton Hotel parking lot) under a parking agreement, in order to create a more boutique-style hotel.

The most recent 2020 EIR Addendum identified short-term construction-related noise as a significant impact. Project-related traffic generation would constitute a considerable contribution to significant cumulative traffic impacts. Other environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant or mitigated to less than significant levels with application of identified mitigation measures.

The 2016 Development Agreement related to the Hotel Parcel (i.e., Waterfront Hotel) between the City of Santa Barbara and American Tradition, LLC addressed environmental review of the Hilton project as follows:
“Given the physical proximity of the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and the similarity of uses at the properties, the City shall use, where appropriate, all applicable reports, environmental documents, studies and other documents prepared by or on behalf of the Parker Family for the development of the Hotel Parcel in its review of any proposed development on the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel resulting from a transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may request additional information or studies with respect to any proposed development of the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel resulting from a transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and any proposed transfer of development rights from the Hotel Parcel to the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel shall be considered a new development proposal on the Fess Parker Hotel Parcel and shall require a separate development plan application and the requisite environmental review and approvals from the City at such time as the Parker Family may request such transfer.” The only mitigation measures from the Waterfront Hotel EIR that would apply to the proposed Hilton project are those related to Archaeological Monitoring. The measures have been added as conditions of approval.

Fess Parker’s Red Lion Resort, Modifications to Approved Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #95121040) (Perspective Planning, July 1996) The Fess Parker’s Red Lion Resort, Modifications to Approved Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit Final Supplemental EIR (Red Lion SEIR) analyzed a request to modify the original operational conditions for the Red Lion Resort. As a Supplemental EIR, the document intended to supplement the Waterfront Hotel EIR discussed above.

When the Red Lion Resort was originally approved, several conditions of that approval called for limits on the conference activities associated with the hotel in order to reduce parking impacts and to minimize peak-hour traffic impacts on nearby roads and intersections. Since that time, studies indicated that the parking lot was generally under-utilized, even during peak use conditions, and many street improvements had been or were soon to be made, including the Crosstown Freeway (completed in 1991), the Milpas Street roundabout, and the extensions of both Garden Street and Salsipuedes Street to Cabrillo Boulevard. No physical changes to the hotel were proposed.

The Red Lion SEIR, which focused on air quality, traffic, and parking impacts, was certified on November 21, 1996; however, the project was withdrawn.

Doubletree Resort Development Plan/ Coastal Development Permit Modifications Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #2001081069) (Rincon, March 2003)
The Doubletree Resort Development Plan/ Coastal Development Permit Modifications Final Supplemental EIR (Doubletree SEIR) evaluated proposed operational changes to the hotel project, similar to those evaluating in the Red Lion SIER, including deleting conditions that limited conference center capacity, hours, and number of non-hotel guests; a reduction in Item III.B Page 165 of 388
Addendum- Page 4
vehicle parking spaces from 1,817 spaces to 1,050 spaces, a reduction of bicycle spaces from 133 to 50 spaces, and an amendment to assign 100 spaces on the site to the future Waterfront Hotel. The approval also removed the Specific Plan requirement that water use be limited to no more than 2.4 acre-feet/acre annually No physical changes to the hotel were proposed. The EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts related to transportation and circulation. The Planning Commission also made a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant adverse long-term traffic impacts resulting from the project.

CEQA FINDING AND DETERMINATION
Based on the review of the Hilton project, the attached environmental checklist, and in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent EIR is required for the current project, because new information and changes in environmental circumstances and criteria, project description, impacts, and mitigations are not substantial and do not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified previously in the certified project EIRs and prior EIR Addenda.

In accordance with Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a certified project EIR is the appropriate CEQA environmental document to identify and document minor changes to the prior EIR analysis to make the EIR adequate for the current project. This EIR Addendum identifies the proposed project and minor changes to the project impact analysis.

All environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant or mitigated to less than significant levels with application of identified mitigation measures. This Addendum, together with the Park Plaza EIR, Waterfront Hotel EIR, Red Lion SIER, Doubletree SEIR, and prior EIR Addenda, constitutes adequate environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA for the current project.

Prepared by: Date: 5/1/2025
Kathleen A. Kennedy, Project Planner
Reviewed by: __________________________________________ Date: 5/1/2025 Julia Pujo, Project Planner/Environmental Analyst
Item III.B Page 166 of 388
Addendum- Page 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains questions concerning potential changes to the environment that may result if this project is implemented. The potential level of significance should be indicated as follows:

Significant: Known substantial environmental impacts. Further review is needed to determine whether there are feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives to reduce the impact.

Potentially Significant: Unknown, potentially significant impacts that need further review to determine significance level and whether any impacts identified as potentially significant can be mitigated.

Less than Significant with Mitigation: Potentially significant impacts that are avoided or reduced to less than significant levels with identified feasible mitigation measures.

Less than Significant: Impacts that are not substantial or significant.

Beneficial Impact: Impacts would improve environmental conditions.

No Impact: Project would not cause this type of impact.

Item III.B Page 167 of 388
Addendum- Page 6

1. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099* (CEQA provisions for Transit-Oriented In-Fill Projects), would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public scenic vista or a private scenic vista visible to a large portion of the community? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect surrounding areas or important public day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Aesthetics and Visual Resources – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Park Plaza EIR noted that the Park Plaza project would require a tradeoff of some public views of the foothills and mountains for other visual amenities. The EIR referenced the Scenic Highways Element (now part of the Circulation Element) of the General Plan noting that a height-setback relationship be created in such a manner that any future development on Cabrillo Blvd. does not obstruct views of scenic resources.

Resulting from this, the Park Plaza Specific Plan includes a building height requirement of either two stories not to exceed 30 feet; or three stories, not to exceed 45 feet, if a height-setback relation study is provided for the purpose of maximizing view protection/enhancement and creation of contiguous open space areas. The Specific Plan also requires a view corridor study to determine the necessary distances between buildings. Views are to be assessed from Cabrillo Blvd. toward the foothills and mountains.

The Waterfront Hotel EIR analyzed impacts to Visual Resources and found long term impacts to be insignificant after mitigation was applied. This included protecting mountain views.

1.a-b) Scenic Views; Scenic Highways and Scenic View Corridors Important public or communitywide scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site include the foothills and mountains.

In addition, Cabrillo Blvd. is a local scenic road.

The proposed building is three stories but well under the 45-foot allowed height. A height-setback relation study and view corridor study are included in the project plans. On May 10, 2023, the plans were presented to the Historic Landmarks Commission as part of the conceptual review of the project. The Commission stated that the view corridors are supportable as proposed; there are no negative impacts to the view corridor; and the design of the project responds appropriately to established scenic public vistas. The Commission also stated that the amount of open space and landscaping is appropriate.

Therefore, impacts to scenic views; scenic highways and scenic view corridors would be less than significant.

Item III.B Page 168 of 388
Addendum- Page 7

1.c) Visual Character and Quality including Changes to Grading and Topography The proposed project includes the removal of a one-story, approximately 14-foot-tall building and the construction of a larger three-story 31’-6” tall building. The new building would be set back further from E. Cabrillo Blvd. than the existing building. The project is consistent with the Specific Plan, which requires a greater setback (180 feet) for two or more story buildings. The third story is stepped back even further from the street. On May 10, 2023, the plans were presented to the Historic Landmarks Commission as part of the conceptual review of the project. The Commission stated that the design of the project is compatible with desirable architectural qualities and characteristics that are distinctive of Santa Barbara and of the particular neighborhood surrounding the project; and that the size, mass, bulk, height, and scale of the project are appropriate. Additionally, the project was found to be consistent with applicable Scenic Resources and Visual Quality LUP Policies 4.3-3 through 4.3-7 of the Coastal Land Use Plan (2019). This includes policies pertaining to the protection of public scenic views and scenic resources, scenic corridors, and compatibility of development. Therefore, impacts to visual character and quality would be less than significant.

1.d) Lighting and Glare
Exterior lighting would be subject to compliance with the requirements of Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 22.75, the City’s Outdoor Lighting and Design Ordinance. The ordinance provides that exterior lighting be shielded and directed to the ground such that no undue lighting or glare would affect surrounding property occupants, roads, or habitat areas.

Outdoor lighting would be consistent with the existing lighting on the project site. In addition, proposed building materials do not include materials with the potential for substantial glare. Therefore, impacts regarding lighting and glare would be less than significant.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources – Mitigation
None.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources – Residual Impacts
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 169 of 388
Addendum- Page 8

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest land? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest land? No Impact
Agriculture and Forestry Resources – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

2.a-e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources
There are no existing agricultural uses or lands zoned for agricultural use within, or in the vicinity of the project site and the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and does not contain Important Farmland (Department of Conservation 2022, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/). The site does not include active farmland, forest land, or protected agricultural soils, and the project would not conflict with zoning for agriculture or forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact to important agricultural or forestry resources.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources – Mitigation
None.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources – Residual Impacts
No impact.

Item III.B Page 170 of 388
Addendum- Page 9

3. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Double Tree
Resort SEIR
(2003)
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is designated in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Double Tree
Resort SEIR
(2003)
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants? Less than Significant Double Tree Resort SEIR
(2003)
d) Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant
e) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant
f) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Double Tree Resort Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (2003) analyzed impacts to air quality emissions related to hotel operation and special events and found impacts to be less than significant.

3.a) Clean Air Plan
The development of the project site would be required to comply with all Santa Barabara County Air Pollution Control District’s (SBAPCD) rules and regulations for construction and operations (Attachment 1). As discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment 2; RCH Group, March 2025), the proposed project would not exceed SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds. The proposed project would be consistent with the SBCAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan and thus, would not obstruct its implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

3.b) Air Pollutant Emissions and Cumulative Impacts
Short-Term (Construction) Emissions:

As discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment 2; RCH Group, March 2025), the proposed project would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds of significance for construction emissions and would be required to implement SBAPCD’s Standard Conditions of Approval for Air Quality and Dust Control. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

See Attachment 1, SBAPCD Suggested Conditions Letter dated 11/16/2023 Long-Term (Operational) Emissions:

As shown in Table 4 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment 1; RCH Group, March 2025), the SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds would not be exceeded. Furthermore, the proposed Item III.B Page 171 of 388
Addendum- Page 10
project would emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROG/VOC from all emissions sources, which is below the SBCAPCD significance threshold of emission of 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROG/VOC from motor vehicle trips only.

Therefore, long-term operational impacts would be less than significant.

3.c) Sensitive Receptors
The nearest sensitive receptor is Chase Palm Park, which is approximately 500 feet to the west of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest residential sensitive receptors are approximately 1,750 feet to the east of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest schools are over one-half mile from the property.

Short-term construction activities would occur at least 1,750 feet away from the nearest residential sensitive receptor, but most construction activities would occur much greater than 2,000 feet away. The SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents notes that a health risk assessment is not required for short-term or construction projects. Off-road construction equipment would be regulated per the State’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation and on-road haul trucks would be regulated per the State’s Truck and Bus Regulation. Therefore, short-term construction impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant Operational emissions include emissions associated with mobile sources (vehicle trips) and area sources (landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with periodic site maintenance activities).

These operational emissions were estimated in Table 4 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment 2; RCH Group, March 2025), and the SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds would not be exceeded. The proposed project would not represent a source of TAC or DPM emissions and would be compatible with the nearby commercial uses. Therefore, long-term operational impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

3.d) Odors
During construction, operation of diesel equipment at the site may generate minor odors. These emissions are short-term in nature and would rapidly dissipate in the open air. Due to the temporary nature of construction odors, construction odor impacts would not be significant. The proposed commercial uses would not introduce sources of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

3.e-f) Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
As shown in Table 5 of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment 2; RCH Group, March 2025), the proposed project would be below the City’s mixed-use GHG Efficiency threshold of 2.13 metric tons of CO2e per service person. Since the proposed project would be operational prior to 2030 and the proposed project GHG emissions are below the threshold, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2030 Climate Action Plan Update (CAP Update) and therefore, impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant.

The City’s Efficiency thresholds were calculated for the year 2030 to provide GHG emissions thresholds for new development in line with the State’s milestone target for year 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would also not conflict with State plans adopted for reducing GHG emissions.

The goals, policies, and strategies within the CAP Update and State regulations address the proposed project’s incremental contribution to climate change and thus the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Mitigation
None.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Residual Impacts Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 172 of 388
Addendum- Page 11

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact Park Plaza EIR
Biological Resources – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Park Plaza EIR indicated that effects related to biological resources would be minimal or of no significance. The recommended mitigation measure involved utilizing drought resistant, native plans for landscaping purposes. This measure is now a requirement for all new commercial landscaping.

4.a) Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Species
The City Master Environmental Assessment describes the project site as urban. The project site is developed with an existing hotel and conference center. The area to be redeveloped on the western portion of the site includes structures, parking lot, and tennis courts.

Sensitive species (southwestern pond turtles) are known to occur to the north and northwest on the other side of the railroad tracks. Special wildlife areas are known to occur to the south at the beach across E. Cabrillo Blvd. No sensitive vegetation communities, special-status wildlife species, or special-status plant species are expected to occur on the project site based on lack of suitable vegetation and habitat; therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to endangered, threatened, or rare species.

Item III.B Page 173 of 388
Addendum- Page 12

4.b-c) Natural Communities; Wetland and Riparian Habitats A freshwater marsh area is located to the north and northwest of the project site across the railroad tracks. A coastal strand beach is located to the south across E. Cabrillo Blvd. No natural communities, wetland or riparian habitats exist on the project site; therefore, there would be impacts to natural communities, wetland or riparian habitats would be less than significant.

4.d) Wildlife Dispersal and Migration Corridors
Removal and relocation of trees may result in significant impacts to nesting birds if activities occur during the nesting season and nests are present. The project will comply with the standard condition of approval and Coastal LUP policy 4.1-36 (Bird Breeding and Nesting) that prohibits tree removals and tree relocations during the nesting season unless a nesting survey has been conducted, and no nests were found. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

4.e) Local Ordinances
A total of 22 trees are to be removed, 33 trees are to be relocated, and 47 trees are to be protected as shown on the project plans, sheets L0.0 through L1.2. Of the trees to be removed, 18 are Ficus, 2 are carrotwood, one is a Metrosideros, and one is a multi-bottle brush tree. Of the trees to be relocated, 20 are fan palms, 10 are paperbark, and 3 are canary palms. No designated historic or specimen trees are proposed to be removed. No biologically important native trees such as oak or sycamore trees are located on the project site. Fifty new trees are proposed consisting of a variety of palms, eucalyptus, broad-leaved paperbark, Tristania, and Metrosideros. Tree protection measures from the Arborist Report (Bill Mellett Design, 10/30/2023) would be applied to the project and the project will implement with conditions of approval for tree protection measures and arborist monitoring.

The project site is located in the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District, therefore, the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) reviews and approves the proposed tree removals as part of their Project Design Approval (SBMC§ 15.24.055). On May 10, 2023, the HLC held a concept review hearing for the project and commented that the Project Compatibility Analysis Findings have provisionally been met and that the amount of open space and landscaping is appropriate. The project has therefore demonstrated compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance (SBMC§ 15.24). Therefore, the impact to trees would be less than significant.

4.f) Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
The Project site is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2023). Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of any of these plans, and no impact would occur.

Biological Resources – Mitigation
None.

Biological Resources – Residual Impacts
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 174 of 388
Addendum- Page 13

5. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5?
Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5?
Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant
d) Cause a substantial effect on an important tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with important cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence and within consideration of the views of California Native American tribes, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1?
Less than Significant
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Park Plaza EIR analyzed impacts to archaeological resources and did not recommend further analysis or mitigation.

The Waterfront Hotel EIR analyzed impacts to historical resources and archaeological resources and found impacts to be less than significant with mitigation. Identified mitigation included review by the Historic Landmarks Commission to ensure consistency with the Cabrillo Boulevard Historic District, as well as archaeological monitoring.

5.a) Historical Resources
Although the project site is located in the El Pueblo Viejo Landmark District Part 1, the existing development is less than 50 years old and not eligible to be a historical resource. The project site does not contain a known historical resource. The East Cabrillo Boulevard Historic District (ECBHD) is a 1920s-era parkway that extends approximately two miles along East Cabrillo Boulevard from State Street to the west to Los Patos Way/Channel Drive to the east. Included within its boundaries are the street itself, the Andree Clark Bird Refuge, Chase Palm Park, East Beach Park, and a number of bridges, structures, and buildings. The district is located in front of the project site, but the project site is not included in the district.

The Historic Landmarks Commission has provided positive comments on the project during conceptual review, noting that the design of the project is appropriately sensitive to adjacent Landmarks or other nearby designated historic resources.

Item III.B Page 175 of 388
Addendum- Page 14
Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

5.b) Archaeological Resources
A portion of the project site is located in the Prehistoric Sites and Watercourses sensitivity area. Archaeological resources were analyzed in the Park Plaza EIR, which concluded that there was no evidence of cultural resources, and no further testing was recommended. Archaeological resources were also analyzed in the Waterfront Hotel EIR. Based on the analysis in the EIR, archaeological monitoring was applied as a mitigation measure. The same mitigation measure would be applied to the proposed project. With the implementation of archaeological monitoring, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

5.c) Human Remains
There is no evidence that the site contains any human remains. Standard conditions of approval for the project include procedures pursuant to State regulations for the unanticipated discovery of human remains. To minimize or avoid potential impacts, if any human remains are discovered, all construction activities would cease, and the Santa Barbara County Coroner would be contacted in accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). If the coroner determines that the human remains are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) would be notified to determine the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) for the area. The MLD would make recommendations for the arrangements for the human remains per Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. Therefore, impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

5.d) Tribal Cultural Resources
The project includes standard conditions of approval for Chumash monitoring in addition to archaeological monitoring.

Santa Barbara Municipal Code Section 22.12, which addresses unanticipated discovery of prehistoric resources, would apply if Native American resources are found. Standard conditions of approval for the project include procedures pursuant to State regulations for the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources, including halting of construction work to assess the resources. Therefore, impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Cultural Resources – Mitigation (Waterfront Hotel EIR)
CR-1 Archaeological Monitoring. Onsite monitoring by a City-Qualified Archaeologist and as appropriate, a Cityqualified Barbareño Chumash Site Monitor, is required for all grading, excavation, trenching, vegetation or paving removal, ground clearance, and site preparation that involves earthmoving operations.

CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring Report. A final report on the results of the archaeological monitoring shall be submitted to the Planning Division within 180 days of completion of the monitoring or prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy / Final Inspection, whichever is earlier.

Cultural Resources – Residual Impacts
Less than Significant
Item III.B Page 176 of 388
Addendum- Page 15

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation; or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
b) Conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant
Energy – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

6.a-b) Energy Conservation and Consumption
The Park Plaza EIR analyzed energy and included mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption. The Park Plaza Specific Plan includes a requirement to submit an energy conservation plan. The project would comply with this requirement.

A solar photovoltaic (PV) system is required for the project and locations are identified on the project plans. The project is required to comply with applicable Building and Energy Codes. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (RCH Group, March 2025) concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan Update and with State goals and regulations adopted for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not expend substantial energy or wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy, nor conflict with energy plans or policies.

Therefore, impacts related to energy would be less than significant.

Energy – Mitigation
None.

Energy – Residual Impacts
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 177 of 388
Addendum- Page 16

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Earthquake Hazards: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic conditions:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Tsunami?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
b) Geologic or Soil Instability: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, or sea cliff failure? Be located on expansive soils, as defined the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
c) Erosion: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR d) Septic System: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact
Geology and Soils – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Park Plaza EIR analyzed geology and topography and included mitigation measures requiring review by qualified soils engineers. The Park Plaza Specific Plan includes a requirement for a geotechnical report to address geological conditions.

The project will comply with this requirement.

7.a-b) Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Fault Rupture:

As with most of Southern California, the project site is within a seismically active area where active faults could produce ground substantial shaking. Faults in the project vicinity may have some potential for ground surface rupture during earthquakes of significant magnitude. The City MEA indicates that the project site is not within a Fault Hazard Zone (200 ft. buffer).

Ground Shaking and Liquefaction:

According to California Geological Survey maps showing the earthquake shaking potential in California, there is a medium Item III.B Page 178 of 388
Addendum- Page 17
to high intensity of ground shaking and damage potential that could occur from future earthquakes (California Geological Survey 2016).

The City MEA indicates that the project site is in an area with high liquefaction potential. A geotechnical report is required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The project is required to comply with the recommendations regarding ground shaking and liquefaction. Therefore, impacts related to ground shaking and liquefaction would be less than significant.

Tsunami:

The project site is located in a tsunami hazard zone. The project applicant would assume the risks of the tsunami hazard zone through the recordation of a deed restriction, in accordance with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 5.1-25 (Tsunami Permit Conditions).

Landslides:

The City MEA indicates that the project site is in an area of very low landslide potential, within a no slope failures area, and has a ‘no slope movement’ classification. A geotechnical report is required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The project is required to comply with the recommendations regarding the potential for landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.

Sea Cliff Retreat:

The project site is not located in the vicinity of sea cliffs. Therefore, there would be no impact related to sea cliff retreat.

Subsidence:

A geotechnical report is required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The project is required to comply with the recommendations regarding the potential for subsidence. Therefore, impacts related to subsidence would be less than significant.

Expansive Soils:

The City MEA indicates that the project site is in an area of high expansive soils. A geotechnical report is required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The project is required to comply with the recommendations regarding soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

7.c) Soil Erosion
The City MEA indicates that the project site is in an area of slight to moderate erosion potential. A geotechnical report is required to be submitted at the time of building permit application. The project is required to comply with the recommendations regarding soils. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.

7.d) Septic Systems
The proposed project would not include the use of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there would be no impact.

7.e) Unique Geological Features and Paleontological Resources The project site is not located in the vicinity of known paleontological resources, unique geologic features, or sedimentary; bedrock formations or rock outcrops; therefore, there would be no impact.

Geology and Soils – Mitigation
None.

Geology and Soils – Residual Impacts
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 179 of 388
Addendum- Page 18

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant
e) For a project located within the SBCAG Airport Land Use Plan, Airport Influence Area, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Waterfront Hotel EIR included an analysis of hazardous materials and environmental contamination. The Waterfront Hotel EIR included mitigation which include preparation of a Phase II Site Investigation and coordination with County EHS. The EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

8.a-e) Public Health and Safety
The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used or removed during proposed project activities would be conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws pertaining to the safe handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, including the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which includes requirements for hazardous solid waste management; the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste (CCR Title 22, Division 4.5), which includes standards for generators and transporters of hazardous waste.

Hazardous Materials Exposure:

An Interim Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) (AEI, December 18, 2024) was prepared to address the remediation of residual volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals in soil and soil gas at the western portion of the project site.

The project site is enrolled in the Voluntary Remediation Oversight Program pursuant to a Remedial Action Agreement executed by the applicant on December 7, 2023 and the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department on January 22, 2024. As requested by Santa Barbara County Public Health Department Environmental Health Services (EHS), Site Item III.B Page 180 of 388
Addendum- Page 19
Mitigation Unit (SMU) letter dated May 3, 2024, AEI prepared an Additional Site Investigation Work Plan (ASI Work Plan) to further characterize the areas identified where additional information regarding the extent of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), California Administrative Manual (CAM)-17 Metals in soil and benzene in gas will assist in the planned redevelopment. The EHS SMU approved the ASI Work Plan on September 13, 2024.

AEI is in the process of completing the additional sampling in the approved ASI Work Plan and will submit such results to EHS SMU. AEI will then prepare a Final RAP at the direction of EHS SMU to address the identified contamination at the site in the development of the project, including, as necessary (1) excavation, handling and disposal of contaminated soil; (2) vapor mitigation on proposed building that will be occupied; and (3) treatment of contaminated groundwater encountered in construction prior to discharge, or capture and offsite disposal at an appropriate facility.

The approved Final RAP will be implemented as part of the project. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Public Safety:

The project site is located adjacent to the UPRR tracks. There is an existing wall along the northern property line that blocks access to the tracks. The hotel has an existing emergency plan. The plan is required to be updated to reflect the expansion of the hotel project. Therefore, impacts related to public safety would be less than significant.

8.f) Emergency Evacuation and Response
The project site is located adjacent to the UPRR tracks. There is an existing wall along the northern property line that blocks access to the tracks. The hotel has an existing emergency plan that is required to be updated to reflect the expansion of the hotel project. Therefore, impacts related to emergency evacuation and response would be less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Mitigation
None.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials – Residual Impacts
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 181 of 388
Addendum- Page 20

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental impact?
Less than Significant
Land Use and Planning – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

9.a) Physically Divide a Community
The project site is located on E. Cabrillo Blvd on an existing site and would not physically divide an established community.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

9.b) Conflict with a Plan or Policy that would Avoid or Mitigate an Environmental Impact City of Santa Barbara General Plan:

The City’s General Plan contains statements, goals, and policies concerning visual resource protection; building size, bulk, and scale; scenic view corridors and setbacks; liquefaction; parking, circulation, and public improvements; and energy, which apply to the project. The project is consistent with these policies, as described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

City of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan:

The project is located within the Coastal Zone. The project will comply with the coastal policy concerning visual resources and nesting birds, as described in the Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and Biological Resources sections, as well as other Coastal LUP policies, as described in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

Ordinance Provisions:

The proposed project is also subject to the provisions of the Park Plaza Specific Plan (SP-1), which contains development regulations beyond what is required under the zoning designation. The project would comply with applicable City Municipal Code provisions for development, including zoning requirements, development permitting procedures, grading, building, and landscape design, lighting, energy efficiency, provision of public improvements and utilities, construction provisions, storm water management, fire code provisions, and noise ordinance. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning – Mitigation
None.

Land Use and Planning – Residual Impacts
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 182 of 388
Addendum- Page 21

10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact
b) Result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact
Mineral Resources – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

10.a-b) Loss of Known Mineral Resource or Mineral Resource Recovery Site The project site contains no known important or protected mineral resources. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City and the potential for mineral resources to occur onsite is low. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource, or a mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur.

Mineral Resources – Mitigation
None.

Mineral Resources – Residual Impacts
No impact.

Item III.B Page 183 of 388
Addendum- Page 22

11. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
c) Siting of a land use in an area with noise levels exceeding City General Plan noise policies and land use compatibility guidelines? Less than Significant Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
d) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or the SBCAG Airport Land Use Plan/Airport Influence Area, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact Park Plaza EIR
(1979)
Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
Noise – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts
The Park Plaza EIR analyzed noise impacts and included mitigation measures to require interior noise levels to be 45dBA.

The Park Plaza Specific Plan includes this as a requirement. The Waterfront Park and Hotel and Youth Hostel FEIR analyzed impacts to noise and found operational impacts would be insignificant with incorporation of measures included compliance with the City Noise Ordinance. However, the Waterfront Park and Hotel and Youth Hostel FEIR indicated that temporary short term noise impacts could result during construction if the use of pile drivers was needed.

11.a-b) Increased Noise Level from Project
Temporary Construction Noise and/or Vibration:

Standard construction equipment will be used for demolition and construction of the project. Construction is expected to last approximately 18 months. Pile driving will not be required. The nearest sensitive receptor is Chase Palm Park, which is approximately 500 feet to the west of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest residential sensitive receptors are approximately 1,750 feet to the east of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest schools are over one-half mile from the property. Construction will occur on the western portion of the site only. The land use to the north is the UPRR tracks, and Marborg Industries (trash and recycling collection facility) on the other side of the tracks. To the west of the project site is S. Calle Cesar Chavez (Public right of way) and the future location of the Waterfront Hotel (currently vacant). Therefore, there will be temporary impacts during construction; however, projects must comply with standard conditions pertaining to construction noise in SBMC Section 9.16. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Noise:

Operational noise would be consistent with the current noise of the hotel. Noise from additional mechanical equipment would be minimal. There are no sensitive receptors near the project site. Therefore, impacts related to long-term operational noise would be less than significant.

Item III.B Page 184 of 388
Addendum- Page 23

11.c) Exposure to High Noise Levels
The project site includes areas with ambient noise levels of 60-65 dBA (interior of the site), 65-70 dBA (along the perimeter of the site), and greater than 70 (adjacent to UPRR tracks). There are no sensitive land uses near the project site. There is an existing wall along the northern perimeter of the project site that attenuates the noise from the UPRR. In addition, project includes a parking lot in the northern portion of the site, with the guest rooms and outdoor pool area located closer to E.

Cabrillo Blvd.

For commercial uses, the normally acceptable maximum exterior ambient noise level is 75 dBA Ldn and the maximum interior noise level is 50 dBA Ldn. Although intermittent noise from the UPRR may occur, the impact regarding exposure to high noise levels would be less than significant.

11.d) Aircraft Noise
The project is not located within the vicinity of the Santa Barbara Airport nor any private airstrip; therefore, there would be no impact.

Noise – Mitigation
None.

Noise – Residual Impact
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 185 of 388
Addendum- Page 24

12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g. through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
Red Lion Resort
Final
Supplemental
EIR (1996)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Waterfront Hotel
EIR (1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
Population and Housing – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts The Park Plaza EIR analyzed housing impacts. The following condition of approval was placed on the hotel and conference center project. “The owner and/or hotel manager shall submit to the Community Development Department for approval prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy an employee recruitment program which shall delineate all methods to be used in attempting to employ and train persons for the Santa Barbara area in order to mitigate the potential for adverse housing impacts. The applicant shall comply with the approved program.” Also, at the time, it was acknowledged that the Redevelopment Agency would use at least 20% of the tax increment monies accruing to the Agency from the project to assist in the construction of low and moderate income affordable housing.

The Waterfront Hotel EIR identified that the hotel project would generate temporary construction jobs and long-term hotel employment growth with associated housing demand. Hotel employment of 281 full- and part-time positions was analyzed for likely recruitment locally and from outside the area, based on local experience of the Hilton Resort and Biltmore hotels.

The analysis estimated that 30 low- or moderate-income employees would be expected to be recruited as permanent employees from outside the area, for an additional estimated housing demand of 22 affordable housing units. Housing effects were addressed by Housing Mitigation Ordinance provisions for an in-lieu affordable housing fee as a condition of project approval. However, the City housing mitigation ordinance was repealed in 1995 and conditions on approved projects requiring affordable housing construction or in-lieu fees were eliminated, including for the Waterfront Hotel project (as documented in the Addendum dated July 16, 2015). City Council found at that time that, with growth controls and housing programs in place, the anticipated level of nonresidential development would not create a significant impact on the Santa Barbara South Coast housing market that would necessitate continuance of the prior ordinance program. They also found the mitigation ordinance approach to be ineffective and outdated, and that programmatic and policy approaches were more effective. The Waterfront Hotel EIR also noted that the Redevelopment Agency would use at least 20% of the tax increment monies accruing to the Agency from the project to assist in the construction of low and moderate income affordable housing.

Through the Transfer of Existing Development Rights from the Waterfront Hotel to the Hilton project, the same analysis would apply; therefore, the Hilton project does not need to provide affordable housing construction or the payment of inItem III.B Page 186 of 388 Addendum- Page 25
lieu fees.

12.a) Growth-Inducing Impacts
The project is expected to require ten (10) additional employees. The project would not involve a substantial increase in major public facilities such as extension of water or sewer lines or roads that would facilitate other growth in the area. The project would not involve substantial employment growth that would increase population or housing demand. Growthinducing impacts would be less than significant because the project site is in an urbanized area that is currently served by all required infrastructure.

12.b) Housing Displacement
The project would not involve any displacement of people or housing. No impact would result from the project.

Population and Housing – Mitigation
None.

Population and Housing – Residual Impact
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 187 of 388
Addendum- Page 26

13. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities or expansion of water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant
f) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire Protection?
ii. Police Protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other Public Facilities?
Less than Significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
General Plan
EIR (2011)
Public Services and Utilities – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts Water demand and school impacts were analyzed within Waterfront Hotel EIR and Appendix A of the Double Tree Resort Final SEIR (2003), and impacts were determined to be consistent within allotted thresholds for water and less than Item III.B Page 188 of 388
Addendum- Page 27
significant.

13.a-c) Water and Sewer
Water:

The water demand (Water Memo, Flowers and Assoc., Inc. 8/26/2024) for the existing development on the site is 46.4 AFY.

The water demand for the proposed project is estimated to be 55.8 AFY. Therefore, the change in water use would be approximately 9.4 AFY, which would not significantly impact the City’s water supply. The proposed project receives water service from the City of Santa Barbara. The proposed project is within the anticipated growth rate for the City and therefore, the City’s long-term water supply and existing water treatment and distribution facilities would adequately serve the proposed project. The potential increase in demand from the proposed project would constitute a less than significant impact to the City water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities.

Sewer:

The City typically assumes 77-87 percent of water demand from new development is converted into wastewater with the remainder retained onsite for landscaping. Based on this assumption, the sewer demand for the existing development on the site is approximately 37.12 AFY. The sewer demand for the proposed project is estimated to be 44.64 AFY (based on 80 percent of water use). Therefore, the change in sewer demand would be approximately 7.52 AFY, which would not significantly impact the City’s capacity to treat wastewater. The proposed project is within the anticipated growth rate for the City projected in the certified General Plan EIR (2011) and therefore, the City’s existing water treatment and distribution facilities would adequately serve the proposed project. Increased sewage treatment associated by the project can be accommodated by the existing City sewer system and sewage treatment plant and would represent a less than significant impact.

13.d-f) Solid Waste Generation/ Disposal
Long-Term (Operational). The project use is estimated to generate 58.4 tons per year (TPY) of solid waste as follows: (73 rooms x 0.8 tons per room). With application of source reduction, reuse, and recycling, landfill disposal of solid waste could be reduced to 29.2 TPY. The existing and proposed amount is reduced to 173.2 TPY. This represents a less than significant impact because it is under the 196 TPY project-specific threshold and is below the 40 TPY cumulative threshold.

Short-Term (Demolition and Construction). Construction-related waste generation is estimated to be 841 tons prior to any recycling or diversion. Total short-term solid waste would be 168.2 TPY after implementation of the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (SBMC Ch. 7.18) requirement to divert 75% of total construction waste. Because the project would generate less than 350 tons of construction and demolition debris, the project would have a less than significant impact related to short-term solid waste.

13.g) Police, Fire, Schools, and Public Facilities
The project site is located in an urban area where all public services are available. The project is not anticipated to create a substantially different demand on fire or police protection services, library services, or City buildings and facilities, than was anticipated in the General Plan EIR. The project would be served with connections to existing public services for gas, electricity, cable, and telephone traversing the site, as well as access to existing roads, all of which can accommodate the minor increase in demand generated by the project.

The project site is served by the Santa Barbara Unified School District for elementary and high school, which is not designated as overcrowded as defined by the State of California. School impact fees would be applied to the project as required in accordance with State law. The certified General Plan EIR found no significant impacts to police, schools, and public facilities for the amount of growth projected for the City in the 2030 timeframe. Therefore, impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, library services, City buildings and facilities, electrical power, natural gas, telephone, and cable telecommunication services are anticipated to be less than significant.

Item III.B Page 189 of 388
Addendum- Page 28
Public Services and Utilities – Mitigation
None.

Public Services and Utilities – Residual Impacts
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 190 of 388
Addendum- Page 29

14. RECREATION
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
c) Result in substantial loss or interference with existing park space or other public recreational facilities (such as hiking, cycling or horse trails)?
Less than significant Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Recreation – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts
Recreation impacts were analyzed in the Waterfront Hotel EIR and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

14.a-b) Recreational Demand
Although additional visitors would be staying at the hotel due to the increase in the number of guest rooms, the project would not result in an increase in residential population and therefore would not increase the demand on existing park facilities to the extent that could cause physical deterioration or necessitate the construction of new facilities which would result in environmental impacts. Further, the waterfront area is well supported with parks and recreational facilities. The Waterfront Hotel EIR determined that there are sufficient recreational facilities to absorb increases in temporary populations generated by the project. Since square footage would be transferred from the Waterfront Hotel to the Hilton hotel project, this determination would also apply to the current project. Therefore, the recreational demand impact would be less than significant.

14.c) Existing Recreational Facilities
The project will remove the existing tennis courts, which are used by hotel guests and occasionally by members of the public taking tennis lessons. Other tennis courts remain available throughout the City. The project will not interfere with existing public park or recreation facilities in the City. Also, in conjunction with the development of the existing hotel, public open space was provided in front of the hotel and along E. Cabrillo Blvd. as shown on the project plans. That area is to remain in open space. The project would not result in development or construction that would interfere with hiking, cycling, or horse trails. Therefore, the impact on recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Recreation – Mitigation
None.

Recreation – Residual Impacts
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 191 of 388
Addendum- Page 30

15. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Waterfront
Hotel EIR
(1993)
Double Tree
Resort Final
SEIR (2003)
Transportation and Circulation – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

15.a) Bicycle/Pedestrian/Public Transit
Transit stops exist at the corner of E. Cabrillo Blvd. and Milpas Street, and adjacent to the project site on Milpas St. These transit stops are anticipated to provide adequate transit resources for the project demands. Bike lanes are provided on E.

Cabrillo Blvd., Milpas St., and Calle Puerto Vallarta.

There is existing sidewalk and parkway along the project frontage that will remain to serve the area’s pedestrian needs. The existing sidewalk and parkway along S. Calle Cesar Chavez will be widened, and a pedestrian access ramp will be installed.

Therefore, project impacts associated with pedestrian, bicycle or public transit facilities would be less than significant.

15.b) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The proposed project, a 50,195 SF addition and net increase of 73 guest rooms, will generate greater than 250 and below 1000 net vehicle trips per day. The project can be assumed to have the VMT characteristics of the Growth Management Program Development Area below City Average. Projects located within a high quality transit corridor as identified by the SBCAG Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan are presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts. Therefore, transportation impacts would be less than significant.

Item III.B Page 192 of 388
Addendum- Page 31

15.c-d) Access/ Circulation/ Safety Hazards
Short-Term Construction Access and Circulation:

The project would generate construction-related traffic and would vary depending on the stage of construction. Temporary construction traffic is generally considered an adverse but not significant impact. Standard conditions of approval would be applied, including restrictions on the hours permitted for construction trips outside of peak traffic hours, approval of routes for construction traffic, and designation of specific construction staging and parking areas. Therefore, short-term construction access and circulation would be less than significant.

Operational Access and Circulation:

No public improvements are required along E. Cabrillo Blvd. Public improvements to S. Calle Cesar Chavez include widening of the sidewalk and parkway, as approved by the Public Works Department.

The City Fire Department has determined that adequate emergency and fire access is provided for the project. Therefore, proposed project impacts associated with vehicular access, circulation and evacuation would be less than significant.

Transportation and Circulation – Mitigation
None.

Transportation and Circulation – Residual Impact
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 193 of 388
Addendum- Page 32

16. WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
Would the project:

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Groundwater:
i. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
ii. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade groundwater quality? Less than Significant
b) Surface Water:
i. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or offsite?
ii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
iii. Substantially affect water quality within a creek? iv. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan?
Less than Significant
c) Flood Risk: In flood hazard zones:
i. Substantially exacerbate existing hazard conditions to persons or property?
ii. Risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? iii. Conflict with floodway or floodplain regulations?
Less than Significant
Water Quality and Hydrology – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

16.a) Groundwater Quantity and Quality
The City Master Environmental Assessment indicates that the project site has potentially shallow groundwater. Groundwater was analyzed as part of the Interim Remedial Action Plan (IRAP) (AEI, December 18, 2024). Groundwater was encountered at the site at 5.5 to 6.12 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a general flow direction to the south. The IRAP concluded that since the site is in an area of known groundwater contamination and is not used for drinking water, and VOCs (other than methylene chloride), were not detected at concentrations exceeding the laboratory MDLs in groundwater samples collected at the Site, groundwater is not planned to be further evaluated or remediated at the Site as part of the proposed investigation. However, the report states, if groundwater must be pumped as part of the construction process, the Final RAP will require treatment of any such groundwater that is contaminated prior to discharge or capture and offsite disposal of such groundwater at a proper facility. The details will be provided in the Final RAP if necessary. Therefore, with implementation of the Final RAP, impacts to groundwater would be less than significant.

Item III.B Page 194 of 388
Addendum- Page 33

16.b) Drainage, Stormwater Runoff, and Water Quality and Creeks The project site is not directly adjacent to a creek. The closest creek area is to the north and northwest on the other side of the railroad tracks. Therefore, in regard to drainage and water quality, there would be no impact to creeks.

A Preliminary Drainage and Storm Water Compliance Report (Flowers & Associates, Inc., May 2024) was prepared for the project. The report demonstrates that the project meets the City’s Tier 4 Storm Water Management Program requirements for water quality treatment, peak runoff discharge rate, and volume reduction for the project site, and Tier 3 requirements in the right-of-way. Onsite stormwater BMPs include catch basin filters, downspout filters, and 13 underground stormwater chambers. Right-of-way stormwater BMPs include inlet filters and an underground stormwater chamber. The project is required to follow all recommendations of the report. Therefore, impacts associated with drainage, stormwater, and surface water quality would be less than significant.

16.c) Flooding
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 0608C1391J, the project site is located in Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard area or an area prone to frequent flooding. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts related to flood hazards, pollutant release, or conflicts with floodway or floodplain regulations in a flood hazard zone. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be less than significant.

Water Quality and Hydrology – Mitigation
None.

Water Quality and Hydrology – Residual Impact
Less than Significant.

Item III.B Page 195 of 388
Addendum- Page 34

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

Level of Significance Analyzed
in Prior
Document
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, or thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuelbreak, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, or mud flows, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant
Wildfire – Existing Conditions and Project Impacts

17.a-c) Wildfire Risk and Consistency with Existing Emergency and Wildfire Plans and Regulations According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not located within a fire hazard severity zone, and the nearest fire hazard severity zone, a state responsibility area, is located more than two miles north of the project site, north of State Route 192 in the foothills of Santa Barbara (CAL FIRE 2024). Substantial urban development, including residences, commercial development, and roadways, separate the project site from the nearest fire hazard severity zone which limit the potential for wildfire at the project site.

The project site is not located in high fire hazard severity zones within the City’s 2021 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP). The closest area, the Foothill Zone, is located approximately one mile to the east. The project would not be located in or near a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. The project will meet all applicable Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, impacts related to wildfires would be less than significant.

17.d) Post-wildfire Flooding or Mud Slides
The project site has not experienced recent wildfires and is not in close proximity to recent burn areas that have the potential for slope instability and mudflows. The project site is not in close proximity to sloped areas that would have a potential for downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts from post-wildfire flooding or mud slides would be less than significant.

Wildfire – Mitigation
None.

Wildfire – Residual Impacts
Less than significant.

Item III.B Page 196 of 388
Addendum- Page 35

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. YES NO
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X

18.a) Biological and Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project, with the implementation of standard conditions, would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildfire population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the project would not eliminate or impact important prehistoric or historic resources. Mitigation measures from the Waterfront Hotel EIR for archaeological monitoring is applied to this project.

18.b) Cumulative Impacts
Sections 1 through 17 of this environmental checklist consider potential cumulative impacts to environmental resources.

The Park Plaza EIR, Waterfront Hotel EIR, Red Lion SEIR, and Double Tree Resort EIR also analyze cumulative development. As discussed in these EIRs, the project, with the implementation of any identified mitigation, would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and would not result in any significant, cumulative impacts on the environment.

18.c) Other Environmental Effects
As discussed in Sections 1 through 17 of this environmental checklist, no significant effects on humans (direct or indirect) would occur as a result of this project. All potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Item III.B Page 197 of 388
Addendum- Page 36

REFERENCES
The following sources used in the preparation of this environmental checklist are located at the Community Development Department, Planning Division, 630 Garden Street, Santa Barbara and are available for review upon request.

Project-Specific Sources
Attachment 1 – Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District Conditions (November 16, 2023) Attachment 2 – Air Quality and GHG Technical Report (RCH Group, March 2025) General Sources
California Building Code as adopted by City
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute & Guidelines City of Santa Barbara Climate Action Plan and MND (2024) Coastal Land Use Plan (2019)
Envirostor web site, State Department of Toxic Substances Control Erosion/Sediment Control Program, City of Santa Barbara (2012) Farmland of Statewide Importance Map, California Resources Agency General Plan, City of Santa Barbara, and General Plan Map General Plan Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (2011) and Addenda Geology Assessment for the City of Santa Barbara
Geotracker website, State Water Resources Control Board Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
Long Term Water Supply Plan (2021)
Master Environmental Assessment, MEA Guidelines, and MEA Maps Regional Growth Impacts Study (1980)
Santa Barbara County APCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents (2022) Santa Barbara Municipal Code & City Charter
Special District Map
Water Demand Factors Update Report (2021)
Zoning Ordinance & Zoning Map
Item III.B Page 198 of 388
November 16, 2023
Kathleen Kennedy Sent Via Email: [email protected] City of Santa Barbara
Community Development
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Re: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Suggested Conditions for 633 E Cabrillo Blvd, PLN2022-00000-00443

Dear Kathleen Kennedy:

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the referenced project, which consists of an approximately 50,065 square foot (SF) addition to Building B (Bougainvillea) at the Hilton Santa Barbara hotel, resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms to the existing hotel. The project also proposes the removal of the existing 4,700 SF Building A (Azalea) to make way for the following improvements: an adult swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area and bar. The project also proposes the removal of the existing tennis courts and the existing 240 SF structure housing the current tennis shop. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 1,900 CY of fill are planned. The area of work is proposed to occur in the westerly portion of the parcel, toward South Calle Cesar Chavez and East Cabrillo Boulevard. The subject property, a 21.85-acre parcel zoned HRC-1/S-P-1/S-D-3 and HRC-2/S-P-1/S-D-3 and identified in the Assessor Parcel Map Book as APN 017-680- 013, is located at 633 E Cabrillo Blvd in the city of Santa Barbara.

The proposed project is subject to the following regulatory requirements that should be included as conditions of approval in the applicable land use permit:

1. All portable diesel-fired construction engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or greater must have either statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) certificates or District permits prior to grading/building permit issuance. Construction engines with PERP certificates are exempt from the District permit, provided they will be on-site for less than 12 months. If a District permit is required, proof of receipt of the District permits shall be submitted by the applicant to planning staff. The District permit process can take several months. To avoid delay, the applicant is encouraged to submit their Authority to Construct permit application to the District as soon as possible, see www.ourair.org/permit-applications to download the necessary permit application(s).

2. The application of architectural coatings, such as paints, primers, and sealers that are applied to buildings or stationary structures, shall comply with District Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings that places limits on the VOC-content of coating products.

3. Asphalt paving activities shall comply with District Rule 329, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials.

4. Construction/demolition activities are subject to District Rule 345, Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities. This rule establishes limits on the generation of visible fugitive dust emissions at demolition and construction sites, includes measures for minimizing fugitive dust from on-site activities, and from trucks moving on- and off-site. Please see www.ourair.org/wpcontent/uploads/rule345.pdf. Activities subject to Rule 345 are also subject to Rule 302 (Visible Emissions) and Rule 303 (Nuisance).

Item III.B Page 199 of 388
District Comments on 633 E Cabrillo Blvd, PLN2022-00000-00443 November 16, 2023

5. Natural gas-fired fan-type central furnaces with a rated heat input capacity of less than 175,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) and water heaters rated below 75,000 Btu/hr must comply with the emission limits and certification requirements of District Rule 352. Please see www.ourair.org/wpcontent/uploads/rule352.pdf for more information.

6. Boilers, water heaters, and process heaters rated between 75,000 and 2.0 million British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) must comply with the emission limits and certification requirements of District Rule 360.

Note: Units fired on fuel(s) other than natural gas still need to be certified under Rule 360. Please see www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/rule360.pdf for more information.

7. The applicant is required to obtain an asbestos survey for suspect asbestos containing materials and complete and submit an Asbestos Demolition/Renovation Notification (District Form ENF-28, which can be downloaded at www.ourair.org/compliance-forms) for each regulated structure to be demolished or renovated. Demolition notifications are required regardless of whether asbestos is present or not. The completed notification should be presented or mailed to the District with a minimum of 10 working days advance notice prior to disturbing asbestos in a renovation or starting work on a demolition. For additional information on asbestos notification requirements, please see www.ourair.org/asbestos/ or contact the District’s Compliance Division at (805) 979-8050.

In addition, the District recommends that the following best practices be considered for inclusion as conditions of approval, in the interest of reducing emissions of criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, dust and odors:

1. To reduce the potential for violations of District Rule 345 (Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities), Rule 302 (Visible Emissions), and Rule 303 (Nuisance), standard dust mitigations (Attachment A) are recommended for all construction and/or grading activities. The name and telephone number of an on-site contact person must be provided to the District prior to grading/building permit issuance.

2. The State of California considers particulate matter emitted by diesel engines carcinogenic. Therefore, during project grading, construction, and hauling, construction contracts must specify that contractors shall adhere to the requirements listed in Attachment B to reduce emissions of particulate matter (as well as of ozone precursors) from diesel equipment. Recommended measures should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible. Prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map recordation, all requirements shall be shown as conditions of approval on grading/building plans, and/or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the map. Conditions shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. The contractor shall retain the Certificate of Compliance for CARB’s In-Use Regulation for Off-Road Diesel Vehicles onsite and have it available for inspection.

If you or the project applicant have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me at (805) 979-8302 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Bryan Wong,
Air Quality Specialist
Planning Division
Attachments: Fugitive Dust Control Measures
Diesel Particulate and NOx Emission Measures
cc: Planning Chron File
Item III.B Page 200 of 388

ATTACHMENT A

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURES
These measures should be required for all projects involving earthmoving activities regardless of the project size or duration. Projects are expected to manage fugitive dust emissions such that emissions do not exceed APCD’s visible emissions limit (APCD Rule 302), create a public nuisance (APCD Rule 303), and are in compliance with the APCD’s requirements and standards for visible dust (APCD Rule 345). • During construction, use water trucks, sprinkler systems, or dust suppressants in all areas of vehicle movement to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. When using water, this includes wetting down areas as needed but at least once in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required when sustained wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.
• Onsite vehicle speeds shall be no greater than 15 miles per hour when traveling on unpaved surfaces. • Install and operate a track-out prevention device where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can include any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out of dirt such as gravel pads, pipe-grid track-out control devices, rumble strips, or wheelwashing systems. • If importation, exportation, and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than one day shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. • Minimize the amount of disturbed area. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, treat the disturbed area by watering, OR using roll-compaction, OR revegetating, OR by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. • Schedule clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation activities during periods of low wind speed to the extent feasible. During periods of high winds (>25 mph) clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite operations from becoming a nuisance or hazard.
• The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and document the dust control program requirements to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map clearance.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans and/or as a separate information sheet listing the conditions of approval to be recorded with the map. Timing: Requirements shall be shown on plans prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or recorded with the map during map recordation.

Conditions shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.

MONITORING: The Lead Agency shall ensure measures are on project plans and/or recorded with maps. The Lead Agency staff shall ensure compliance onsite. APCD inspectors will respond to nuisance complaints.

Item III.B Page 201 of 388

ATTACHMENT B

DIESEL PARTICULATE AND NOX EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES
Particulate emissions from diesel exhaust are classified as carcinogenic by the state of California. The following is a list of regulatory requirements and control strategies that should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.

The following measures are required by state law:
• All portable diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 brake horsepower (bhp) shall be registered with the state’s portable equipment registration program OR shall obtain an APCD permit. • Fleet owners of diesel-powered mobile construction equipment greater than 25 hp are subject to the California Air Resource Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), §2449), the purpose of which is to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx), diesel particulate matter (DPM), and other criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. Off-road heavy-duty trucks shall comply with the State OffRoad Regulation. For more information, see www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. • Fleet owners of diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks and buses are subject to CARB’s On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (InUse) Regulation (Title 13, CCR, §2025), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM, NOx and other criteria pollutants from inuse (on-road) diesel-fueled vehicles. For more information, see www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. • All commercial off-road and on-road diesel vehicles are subject, respectively, to Title 13, CCR, §2449(d)(3) and §2485, limiting engine idling time. Off-road vehicles subject to the State Off-Road Regulation are limited to idling no more than five minutes. Idling of heavy-duty diesel trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes, unless the truck engine meets the optional low-NOx idling emission standard, the truck is labeled with a clean-idle sticker, and it is not operating within 100 feet of a restricted area.

The following measures are recommended:
• Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment with engines meeting the CARB Tier 4 emission standards if available or Tier 3 emission standards should be used to the maximum extent feasible. • On-road heavy-duty equipment with model year 2010 engines or newer should be used to the maximum extent feasible. • Diesel powered equipment should be replaced by electric equipment whenever feasible. Electric auxiliary power units should be used to the maximum extent feasible.
• Equipment/vehicles using alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel, should be used on-site where feasible.
• Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible. • All construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer’s specifications. • The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. • The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time. • Construction worker trips should be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite. • Construction truck trips should be scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour emissions whenever feasible. • Proposed truck routes should minimize to the extent feasible impacts to residential communities and sensitive receptors.
• Construction staging areas should be located away from sensitive receptors such that exhaust and other construction emissions do not enter the fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners, and windows.

PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND TIMING: Prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map recordation, all requirements shall be shown as conditions of approval on grading/building plans, and/or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the map. Conditions shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. The contractor shall retain the Certificate of Compliance for CARB’s In-Use Regulation for Off-Road Diesel Vehicles onsite and have it available for inspection.

MONITORING: The Lead Agency shall ensure measures are on project plans and/or recorded with maps. The Lead Agency staff shall ensure compliance onsite. APCD inspectors will respond to nuisance complaints.

Item III.B Page 202 of 388

SANTA BARBARA

HILTON HOTEL

EXPANSION PROJECT
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Report
Prepared by:

March 2025
Item III.B Page 203 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT i AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 2 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 4 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................................... 6 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................................... 13 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................. 14 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 14 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................... 20 Setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 29 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................... 31 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 31 GHG Emissions ........................................................................................................................................ 31

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING INFORMATION
I. CALEEMOD DETAILED EMISSIONS OUTPUT
Item III.B Page 204 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 1 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report associated with the proposed Hilton Hotel Expansion Project (proposed project) in Santa Barbara, California. This document provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions at the project site, regulatory framework, an analysis of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project.

The supporting information, methodology, and assumptions used in the construction air emissions inventory and operational air emissions inventory are provided in Appendix A: CalEEMod Supporting information.

Air quality impacts were determined for United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) criteria air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulate or PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate or PM2.5). When volatile organic compounds (VOC) such as reactive organic gases (ROG)1
and nitrogen oxide (NOx) accumulate in the atmosphere and are exposed to the ultraviolet component of sunlight, ozone (O3) is formed. As such, the assessment of ozone was performed using emission estimates of ROG and NOx, known as pollutant precursors. The air quality analysis is consistent with the methods described in the Santa Barabara County Air Pollution Control District’s (SBCAPCD)’s Environmental Review Guidelines2 and Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in
Environmental Documents.
3 The GHG emissions analysis is consistent with the methods described in the City of Santa Barbara’s Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 4 1 VOC means any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions and thus, a precursor of ozone formation. ROG are any reactive compounds of carbon, excluding methane, CO, CO2 carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and other exempt compounds. The terms VOC and ROG are often used interchangeably. 2 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Environmental Review Guidelines, Revised April 30, 2015, https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/APCDCEQAGuidelinesApr2015-1.pdf 3 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, January 2022 Limited Update, https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJanuary2022- LimitedUpdates.pdf
4 City of Santa Barbara, Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, May 2024.

Item III.B Page 205 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 2 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project site is at 633 East Cabrillo Boulevard in Santa Barbara, CA (APN: 017-680-13). The area of work is proposed to occur in the northwest corner of the parcel, to south Calle Cesar Chavez and East Cabrillo Boulevard. The proposed project consists of an 83-guest room addition to Building B of approximately 50,195 square feet (SF), consisting of a net increase of 73 guest rooms, the demolition of 8 guest rooms in Building A (Azalea), and the removal of 2 guest rooms in Building B (guest room demolition would total approximately 2,900 SF). The existing property has 360 guestrooms and will have 433 after project completion. The proposed addition meets a portion of Building B’s west exterior wall, requiring demolition and room layout changes in 6 existing guest rooms.

To make way for the proposed hotel expansion, the western parking lot will be reconfigured including changes to the existing circulation, landscaping, and proposed permeable pavers. Roughly 475 SF and 8,080 SF of asphalt and concrete would be removed from the site, respectively. Approximately 24,000 SF and 30,000 SF of concrete and landscaping would be added to the site, respectively. The proposed project also includes the removal of the existing tennis shop (240 SF) and the existing 4,027 SF Building A (Azalea) to make way for the following improvements: an adult swimming pool, spa, outdoor lounge area, and bar.

Construction is estimated to start in August of 2026 and end in January of 2028. Construction would require roughly 2 months of demolition, 2 months of site preparation and grading, 12 months of building construction, 2 months of paving and painting/coating. Demolition of existing structures and removal of existing concrete and asphalt would result in approximately 146 one-way haul truck trips. Grading and site excavation would require approximately 3,050 cubic yards of soil export, resulting in approximately 382 one-way haul truck trips.

Item III.B Page 206 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 3 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
The proposed project would be operational in the first quarter of 2028 and is proposed to include solar panels, electric landscaping equipment, and a water reduction program. Because solar and water reduction details are currently unknown, no electricity use reductions were assumed in the operational emissions modeling and analysis. Furthermore, the operational emissions modeling and analysis also conservatively assumed gasoline landscaping equipment since there is no enforcement mechanism requiring the proposed project to use all electric landscaping equipment. Existing operational baseline emissions were calculated for the existing building space/hotel rooms and tennis shop to be demolished.

The proposed project was estimated to generate approximately 166 vehicle trips per day.5 The existing
baseline was estimated to generate approximately 26 vehicle trips per day. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 140 vehicle trips per day.6

5 The proposed project is in Model Area 3 and has an AM Peak Hour Trip (PHT) rate of 0.24 trips per 1,000 square feet and a PM PHT rate of

0.33 trips per 1,000 square feet. Peak hour trips are generally 10% of average daily trips (ADT). The higher PHT rate (PM) was conservatively used to calculate ADT based on the 50,195 SF addition. The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transportation District provides two bus routes (#14 and 20) serving the area and transit stops are within one-half mile of the project site. In addition, according to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan, Existing Transit Priority Areas, the project site is located within an existing transit priority area (15 minute or less headways within a half mile distance) (SBCAG RTP-SCS Figure 3-3). As such, the proposed project is presumed to cause less than significant transportation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts under CEQA. 6 Vehicle trips were modeled using CalEEMod default trip lengths for the project region. All trips were considered primary trips (not reduced in length due to pass by or diversion). All trips were considered O-O trips (made between land uses that do not involved home or work locations) except for the trips associated with the increase of 10 hotel employees under the project, which were considered H-W trips (home to work trips).

Item III.B Page 207 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 4 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

AIR QUALITY

SETTING

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Ambient air quality is generally affected by climatological conditions, the topography of the air basin, and the type and amounts of pollutants emitted. The project site is in South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB).

The SCCAB comprises three air districts: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.

TOPOGRAPHY AND METEOROLOGY
The SBCAPCD’s jurisdiction includes the entirety of Santa Barabara County. The county’s air quality is influenced by both local topography and meteorological conditions. Most of the county's developed areas are located along the coastal plain and in the inter-mountain valleys. Santa Barbara County's climate is typically warm and dry in summer and cool and wet in winter, close to that of a Mediterranean-type climate. Most of the county's rivers, creeks, and streams remain dry during the summer months. The proximity of the Pacific Ocean tends to moderate Santa Barbara's climate and temperatures near the coast, while adjacent steep mountain ranges paralleling the coast produce a significant "orographic effect." This occurs when storms approaching the county from the Pacific Ocean are forced upward against the mountains resulting in an increased precipitation release with the increased topographic elevation. This orographic effect, in conjunction with the steep, short watersheds, occasionally results in flash flooding along the county's south coast. 7
Precipitation within the county varies greatly from season to season and with each location. Average annual precipitation ranges from a minimum of about 8 inches in the Cuyama Valley to over 36 inches at the apex of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Snow is common at the county's highest elevations that are more than 6,600 feet above sea level. Temperatures in the winter range from an average low of 33°F at night to an average high of 55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) during the day and in the summertime the daytime highs range in the 70s and 80s with lows ranging in the 50s and 60s.8 7 Santa Barbara County, Santa Barbara County Climate, Accessed March 1, 2024 at: https://www.countyofsb.org/2261/SantaBarbara-County-Climate 8 Ibid.

Item III.B Page 208 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 5 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Land uses such as schools, children’s daycare centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are more sensitive than the public to poor air quality because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. California Air Resource Board (CARB) has identified the following people as most likely to be affected by air pollution: children less than 14 years of age, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and those with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.

These groups are classified as sensitive population groups.

Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions than commercial and industrial areas because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, resulting in greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive, due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions and because the presence of pollution detracts from the recreational experience. The nearest sensitive receptor is Chase Palm Park, which is approximately 500 feet to the west of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest residential sensitive receptors are approximately 1,750 feet to the east of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest schools are over one-half mile from the property.

LOCAL AIR QUALITY
Ambient air quality at the project site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at monitoring stations. Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the region are documented by measurements made by CARB, air districts, and other agencies. The nearest monitoring station is the Santa Barbara – 700 East Canon Perdido monitoring station (roughly 1.5 miles northwest of the project site. Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data (2021 through 2023).

The State and National one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards were not exceeded during the threeyear period. The National 24-hour PM10 standard was not exceeded during the three-year period. The State 24-hour PM10 standard was exceeded one time in 2021, four times in 2022, and one time in 2023.

The National 24-hour PM2.5 standard was not exceeded during the three-year period Item III.B Page 209 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 6 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Table 1
Air Quality Data Summary (2021 - 2023)
Pollutant
Monitoring Data by Year
Standards 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (O3)
Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm) 0.09 0.069 0.065 0.064
Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm) 0.070 0.060 0.058 0.052
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Highest 24-Hour Average (mg/m3) 50 60.5 60.2 55.7
State Annual Average (mg/m3) 12 21.0 * 18.3
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Highest 24-Hour Average (mg/m3) 35 20.2 20.0 26.4
State Annual Average (mg/m3) 12 * * 8.0

Notes: Values in bold are in excess of at least one applicable standard. “*” means there was insufficient data to calculate a value.

Generally, State and national standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year. ppm = parts per million; mg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter.

Source: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Data Statistics, https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html

REGULATORY SETTING

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
USEPA has established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for six common air pollutants known as “criteria air pollutants.”9 These air pollutants consist of
CO, NO2, ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), SO2, and lead (Pb). An ambient air quality standard establishes the concentration above which the pollutant is known to cause adverse health effects to sensitive groups within the population such as children and the elderly. Ambient air quality standards are classified as either “primary” or “secondary” standards. Primary standards define levels of air quality, including an adequate margin of safety, necessary to protect public health. Secondary ambient air quality standards define levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 2. 9 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Six Common Air Pollutants, https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants Item III.B Page 210 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 7 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Table 2
State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources _______________ Source: Air Quality Standards, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/background-air-quality-standards Pollutant
Averaging
Time
State
Standard
National
Standard Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Ozone 1 Hour 8 Hour 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm – 0.070 ppm High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long–term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Formed when reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. Major sources include on–road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment.

Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 8 Hour
20 ppm

9.0 ppm
35 ppm 9.0 ppm
Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, carbon monoxide interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen.

Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline–powered motor vehicles.

Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
1 Hour Annual

0.18 ppm 0.03 ppm

0.10 ppm 0.053 ppm
Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish–brown.

Motor vehicles, petroleum–refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.

Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
1 Hour 3 Hour 24 Hour Annual

0.25 ppm
–

0.04 ppm
–

0.075 ppm 0.5 ppm 0.14 ppm 0.030 ppm
Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight.

Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing.

Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24 Hour Annual
50 µg/m320 µg/m3
150 µg/m3–
May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility.

Dust and fume–producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind–raised dust and ocean sprays).

Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24 Hour Annual
–
12 µg/m3

35.0 µg/m312.0 µg/m3
Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.

Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning; Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and organics.

Lead (Pb)
Month Rolling 3 Month

1.5 µg/m3
–
– 0.15 µg/m3
Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction.

Present sources: lead smelters, battery manufacturing & recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline.

Item III.B Page 211 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 8 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Under the federal CAA, USEPA designates air basins where NAAQS are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there are inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they are considered “unclassified.” Areas where air pollution levels persistently exceed the State or national ambient air quality standards are designated "nonattainment.” Federal nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. With respect to the NAAQS, Santa Barbara County (including the City of Santa Barbara) is in attainment of (or unclassified) all federal standards.

CARB manages air quality, regulates mobile emissions sources, and oversees the activities of county and regional Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts. CARB regulates local air quality indirectly by establishing State ambient air quality standards and vehicle emissions and fuel standards; and by conducting research, planning and coordinating activities. California has adopted ambient standards (known as California Ambient Air Quality Standards or CAAQS) that are more stringent than the federal standards for some criteria air pollutants. Under the California CAA patterned after the federal CAA, areas have been designated as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS.

With respect to the CAAQS, Santa Barbara County (including the City of Santa Barbara) is currently designated nonattainment-transitional for the state ozone standard. A nonattainment district is designated as nonattainment-transitional for ozone if air quality data show three or fewer exceedances of the State standard at each site in the area during the most recent calendar year. To be designated attainment, data must demonstrate that the ozone standard was not violated for three consecutive years.

The county violates the State standard for PM10 and is designated nonattainment for that standard; it is currently designated unclassified for the State PM2.5 standard.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The following provides a summary of the potential health and welfare effects and typical sources of each of the criteria air pollutants.

OZONE
Ozone or O3 is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and that can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. O3 is not emitted directly into the atmosphere but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving VOC and NOx. VOC and NOx are known as precursor compounds for O3.

Substantial ozone production generally requires O3 precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight for approximately three hours. O3 is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources but is formed downwind of sources of VOC and NOx under the influence of wind and sunlight. O3 concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and fall, when long sunny days combine with regional air subsidence inversions to create conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary photochemical compounds.

Item III.B Page 212 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 9 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

CARBON MONOXIDE
CO is a nonreactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion of organic material, and is mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic, and in wintertime, with wood–burning stoves and fireplaces. High CO concentrations develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground–level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning).

These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures.

When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces its oxygencarrying capacity, resulting in reduced levels of oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues.

This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. CO measurements and modeling were important in the early 1980s when CO levels were regularly exceeded throughout California, but in more recent years, CO measurements and modeling are not a priority in most California air districts due to the retirement of older vehicles, fewer emissions from new vehicles, and improvements to fuels.

NITROGEN OXIDES
When combustion temperatures are extremely high, as in aircraft, truck and automobile engines, atmospheric nitrogen combines with oxygen to form various oxides of nitrogen. Nitric oxide (NO) and NO2 are the most significant air pollutants generally referred to as NOx. Nitric oxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is relatively harmless to humans, quickly converts to NO2 and can be measured. Nitrogen dioxide has been found to be a lung irritant capable of producing pulmonary edema. Inhaling NO2 can lead to respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
VOC means any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions and thus, a precursor of ozone formation. VOC are any reactive compounds of carbon, excluding methane, CO, CO2, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and other exempt compounds.

VOC include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short- and long-term adverse health effects.

VOC are emitted by a variety of products numbering in the thousands. Examples include paints, lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, building materials and furnishings, as well as fuel storage and use.

VOC can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; and damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. The ability of organic chemicals to cause health effects varies greatly from those that are highly toxic, to those with no known health effect. As with other pollutants, the extent and nature of the health effect will depend on many factors including level of exposure and length of time exposed. Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, and memory impairment are among the immediate symptoms that some people have experienced soon after exposure to some organics.

Item III.B Page 213 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 10 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

PARTICULATE MATTER
PM10 (coarse particulate) and PM2.5 (fine particulate) consist of airborne particles that measure 10 micrometers or less in diameter and 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, respectively. PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and the lungs, causing adverse health effects. Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fumeproducing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition, construction activities and mining, are more local in nature, while others such as vehicular traffic and wood burning stoves and fireplaces, have a more regional effect.

Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain adsorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious to health. Particulates can also damage materials and reduce visibility. Dust comprised of large particles (diameter greater than 10 micrometers) settles out rapidly and is easily filtered by human breathing passages. This dust is of concern more as a soiling nuisance rather than a health hazard. The remaining fractions, PM10 and PM2.5, are a health concern particularly at levels above the NAAQS and CAAQS. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to have greater effects on health, because these particles are so small and thus penetrate to the deepest parts of the lungs.

Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children.

Mortality studies since the 1990s have shown a statistically significant direct association between mortality (premature deaths) and daily concentrations of particulate matter in the air. Despite important gaps in scientific knowledge and continued reasons for some skepticism, a comprehensive evaluation of the research findings provides persuasive evidence that exposure to fine particulate air pollution has adverse effects on cardiopulmonary health. The CARB has estimated that achieving the ambient air quality standards for PM10 could reduce premature mortality rates by 6,500 cases per year.

SULFUR DIOXIDE
SO2 is a combustion product of sulfur or sulfur–containing fuels such as coal and diesel. SO2 is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter and contributes to potential atmospheric sulfuric acid formation that could precipitate downwind as acid rain.

LEAD
Ambient lead concentrations meet both the federal and State standards in the county. Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects and was released into the atmosphere via leaded gasoline products.

The phase-out of leaded gasoline in California has resulted in dramatically decreased levels of atmospheric lead. The highest concentrations of lead in air are generally found near lead smelters and general aviation airports, where piston aircraft use leaded fuel. Other stationary sources that generate lead emissions include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Notably, diesel fuel does not contain lead emissions and gasoline fuel is unleaded.

Item III.B Page 214 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 11 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Non-criteria air pollutants or toxic air contaminants are airborne substances that can cause short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TAC includes both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TAC includes approximately 240 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines and asbestos.

In August of 1998, CARB identified particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines as TAC. CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles10 and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines.11 The document represents a proposal to reduce diesel particulate emissions, with the goal to reduce emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and 85 percent in 2020. The program aims to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed diesel particulate filters and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel on diesel-fueled engines.

DPM is the most complex of diesel emissions. Diesel particulates, as defined by most emission standards, are sampled from diluted and cooled exhaust gases. This definition includes both solid and liquid material that condenses during the dilution process. The basic fractions of DPM are elemental carbon; heavy hydrocarbons derived from the fuel and lubricating oil and hydrated sulfuric acid derived from the fuel sulfur. DPM contains a large portion of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) found in diesel exhaust. Diesel particulates include small nuclei particles of diameters below 0.04 micrometers (µm) and their agglomerates of diameters up to 1 µm. DPM is a major factor in total TAC exposure in California.

California State law defines TAC as air pollutants having carcinogenic effects. A total of 243 substances have been designated as TAC under California law; they include the 187 (federal) hazardous air pollutants (HAP) adopted in accordance with AB 2728. The Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources, but AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions. TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. Depending on the risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures. 10 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000, Report: 2000-10-00 Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (ca.gov)
11 California Air Resources Board, Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines, October 2000, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rmgfinal.pdf Item III.B Page 215 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 12 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

STATE REGULATIONS
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) administers the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) to register portable equipment designed to move from one location to another throughout the State of California. PERP registered equipment may operate in multiple local air districts. CARB is responsible for the PERP program and issues PERP registrations for eligible equipment. Projects that would use diesel-powered construction equipment in construction or operation must register all portable diesel-powered construction equipment with the PERP OR must obtain an Air Pollution Control District (APCD) permit from their local air district.

Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles12, the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions by requiring fleets to phase-out the use of the oldest and highest polluting off-road diesel vehicles in California, prohibiting the addition of high-emitting vehicles to a fleet; and requiring the use of renewable diesel fuels. This regulation also contains performance requirements including a requirement limiting idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading to five minutes, with exceptions for vehicles that need to perform work.

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
The SBCAPCD performs a number of functions which include preparing and updating the clean air plans; implementing state and federal air pollution control laws; adopting, administering, and enforcing air pollution control rules and regulations; overseeing a network of air quality monitoring stations; demonstrating innovative clean air technology; and, educating the public about their role in reducing air pollution. In addition, the SBCAPCD acts as lead agency, responsible agency or a concerned agency with jurisdiction by law over the air resources of the County under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this capacity, the SBCAPCD reviews environmental documents for the air quality impacts of land use projects. Specific SBCAPCD rules that apply to the proposed project include but are not limited to the following:
 Rule 303 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material in violation of Section 41700 of the Health and Safety Code which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety or any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 345 – Control of Fugitive Dust from Construction and Demolition Activities. This rule applies to any activity associated with the construction or demolition of a structure. Activities subject to this regulation are also subject to Rule 302 (Visible Emissions) and Rule 303 (Nuisance). This rule includes specific requirements and standards applicable to construction or demolition activities to reduce and prevent visible emissions.
12 Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, § 2449 Item III.B Page 216 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 13 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
 Rule 323 – Architectural Coatings. This rule is applicable to any person who supplies, sells, offers for sale, applies, or solicits the application of any architectural coating, or who manufactures any architectural coating for use within the SBCAPCD. Effective January 1, 2003, flat coatings must meet 100 grams VOC per liter, non-flat coatings must meet 150 grams VOC per liter, and non-flat high-gloss coatings must meet 250 grams VOC per liter. There are also various limits for specialty coatings found at in Table 1 of the rule at: https://www.ourair.org/wpcontent/uploads/Rule323.pdf

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The significance of potential impacts was determined based on State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, and the Santa Barabara County Air Pollution Control District’s (SBCAPCD)’s Environmental Review Guidelines13 and Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. 14 Using Appendix G evaluation
thresholds, the proposed project would be considered to have significant air quality impacts if it were to:

A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; B. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; C. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or D. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

According to the SBCAPCD, a proposed project will not have a significant air quality effect on the environment, if operation of the proposed project will:
 emit (from all project sources, both stationary and mobile) less than the daily trigger for offsets or Air Quality Impact Analysis set in the APCD New Source Review Rule, for any pollutant ( i.e., 240 pounds/day for ROG/VOC or NOx; and 80 lbs/day for PM10. There is no daily operational threshold for CO ; it is an attainment pollutant) ; and  emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROG/VOC from motor vehicle trips only; and  not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard (except ozone); and
 not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the APCD Board; and  be consistent with the latest adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans for Santa Barbara County. 13 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Environmental Review Guidelines, Revised April 30, 2015, https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/APCDCEQAGuidelinesApr2015-1.pdf 14 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, January 2022 Limited Update, https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJanuary2022- LimitedUpdates.pdf
Item III.B Page 217 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 14 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
For construction emissions, the SBCAPCD does not currently have quantitative thresholds of significance in place for short-term or construction emissions; however, the SBCAPCD uses 25 tons per year for ROG/VOC or NOX as a guideline for determining the significance of construction impacts. Standard dust control measures must be implemented for any discretionary project involving earth-moving activities.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY
Construction and operational emissions that would be generated by the proposed project were estimated using California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1).15 The purpose of CalEEMod is to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to estimate ozone precursors, criteria pollutants, and GHGs (collectively referred to as “emissions”) from land use development and linear projects in California. Appendix A provides CalEEMod inputs/assumptions and emissions inventory model outputs for the proposed project.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT AQ-1: CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLANS The California CAA requires an air quality attainment plan be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. As previously described, the SBCAPCD is the agency responsible for enforcing many federal and state air quality requirements and for establishing air quality rules and regulations. Because Santa Barbara County is designated nonattainment-transitional for the State ozone standard and nonattainment for the State PM10 standard, the SBCAPCD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of such standards.

The 2022 Ozone Plan, prepared by the SBCAPCD in December 2022, is the tenth triennial update to the initial state Air Quality Attainment Plan that was adopted by the SBCAPCD Board of Directors in 1991. The 2022 Ozone Plan is the current SBCAPCD Board-adopted air quality management plan for Santa Barbara County, which includes the City of Santa Barbara. The 2022 Ozone Plan incorporates and builds upon the prior Clean Air Plans and predominantly focuses on achieving attainment of the state ozone standards.

The 2022 Ozone Plan focuses on reducing ozone precursor emissions through implementation of measures that serve to reduce the major sources of ozone precursor emissions from motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paints, consumer products and certain industrial processes)16. 15 California Air Pollution Officers Association, California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide Version 2022.1, April 2022, http://www.caleemod.com/
16 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 2022 Ozone Plan, December 2022.

Item III.B Page 218 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 15 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
To be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan, the proposed project's direct and indirect emissions must be accounted for in the growth assumptions and policies in the 2022 Ozone Plan. When population growth exceeds these forecasts, emission inventories could be surpassed, affecting attainment status. The proposed project is consistent with the existing zoning for the project site; thus, the proposed project would not result in emissions greater than what was anticipated for the site in the 2022 Ozone Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly contribute to an unplanned increase in population and would be consistent with the population projections on which the emissions forecast of the 2022 Ozone Plan is based.

The development of the project site would be required to comply with all SBCAPCD rules and regulations for construction and operations. As noted in this analysis, the proposed project would not exceed SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds. The proposed project would be consistent with the SBCAPCD 2022 Ozone Plan and thus, would not obstruct its implementation. This impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT AQ-2: COMPLIANCE WITH AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Demolition and construction-related activities are temporary, finite sources of air pollutant emissions.

Typical sources of construction-related air pollutant emissions include:
 Exhaust from construction equipment and worker automobiles, delivery trucks, and materialhauling trucks.  Fugitive dust from earthmoving activities and equipment travel on unpaved surfaces.  Fugitive VOC (or ROG) emissions from architectural coating.

Fugitive dust emissions vary greatly during construction and are dependent on the amount and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Vehicles moving over unpaved surfaces, excavation, earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces are all sources of fugitive dust.

Project construction would generate short-term emissions of air pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. CalEEMod was used to quantify demolition and construction-related pollutant emissions. Table 3 provides the estimated annual tons of construction emissions for the proposed project. The annual construction emissions were compared to the SBCAPCD significance thresholds. Construction-related emissions would be below the SBCAPCD significance thresholds. See Appendix A for air quality calculations.

Item III.B Page 219 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 16 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Table 3
Estimated Annual Project Construction Emissions (Tons)
Condition ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Construction (2026) 0.12 1.10 0.18 0.11 1.12
Construction (2027) 0.57 1.27 0.07 0.05 1.81
Construction (2028) 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Significance Threshold 25 25 -- -- --
Significant (Yes or No) No No -- -- --

Source: CAPCOA, 2022.

As shown in Table 3, annual emissions of ROG and NOx would be below SBCAPCD's 25 tons per year threshold for project construction. However, because the County is designated nonattainment for the state PM10 standard, construction emissions control measures are required for all projects involving earthmoving activities regardless of size or duration. The proposed project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for Air Quality and Dust Control, as follows:
a. During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this should include wetting down such areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required whenever the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.
b. Minimize amount of disturbed area and reduce on site vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour or less. c. If importation, exportation and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.

Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. d. Gravel pads shall be installed at all access points to prevent tracking of mud onto public roads. e. After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation is completed, treat the disturbed area by watering, or revegetating, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur.
f. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure. g. All portable diesel-powered construction equipment shall be registered with the state’s portable equipment registration program OR shall obtain an APCD permit. The seeding and or watering of the site until such time as the ground cover has taken root.

Item III.B Page 220 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 17 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
h. Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Regulation for In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9, § 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce diesel particulate matter (PM) and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. For more information, please refer to the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. i. All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, § 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
j. Diesel powered equipment should be replaced by electric equipment whenever feasible. k. If feasible, diesel construction equipment shall be equipped with selective catalytic reduction systems, diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters as certified and/or verified by EPA or California.
l. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if feasible. m. All construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer’s specifications. n. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size. o. The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time. Construction worker trips should be minimized by requiring carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite.

The proposed project would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds of significance for construction emissions and would be required to implement City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for Air Quality and Dust Control. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational emissions would include emissions associated with mobile sources (vehicle trips) and area sources (landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coating associated with periodic site maintenance activities). The emissions from proposed project operations were estimated using CalEEMod. Table 4 summarizes the net operational emissions that would result from the proposed project (project minus existing baseline) and compares the emissions with the SBCAPCD significance criteria for evaluating air emissions impacts.

Item III.B Page 221 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 18 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Table 4
Estimated Daily Project Net Operational Emissions (Pounds) Condition ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO
Maximum Daily Summer
Emissions (Project) 2.35 0.72 0.47 0.16 5.13
Maximum Daily Winter
Emissions (Project)

2.00 0.73 0.51 0.15 4.14
Maximum Daily Summer
Emissions (Baseline)

0.35 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.78
Maximum Daily Winter
Emissions (Baseline)

0.30 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.51
Maximum Net Daily
Emissions (Project
Minus Baseline)

2.00 0.62 0.43 0.14 4.35
Significance Threshold 240 240 80 – –
Significant (Yes or No) No No No – –

Source: CAPCOA, 2022.

As shown in Table 4, the SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds would not be exceeded.

Furthermore, the proposed project would emit less than 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROG/VOC from all emissions sources, which is below the SBCAPCD significance threshold of emission of 25 pounds per day of NOx or ROG/VOC from motor vehicle trips only. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT AQ-3: IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
As previously described, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The nearest sensitive receptor is Chase Palm Park, which is approximately 500 feet to the west of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest residential sensitive receptors are approximately 1,750 feet to the east of the proposed area of the work on the property. The nearest schools are over one-half mile from the property.

Item III.B Page 222 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 19 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The proposed project would generate short-term emissions DPM from construction activities (on-road haul truck and off-road equipment exhaust emissions). Studies have demonstrated that DPM from dieselfueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk, particularly to sensitive receptors. Short-term construction activities would occur at least 1,750 feet away from the nearest residential sensitive receptor, but most construction activities would occur much greater than 2,000 feet away. The SBCAPCD’s Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents17 notes that a health risk assessment is not required for short-term or construction projects. Off-road construction equipment would be regulated per the State’s In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation and on-road haul trucks would be regulated per the State’s Truck and Bus Regulation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
As previously described, operational emissions would include emissions associated with mobile sources (vehicle trips) and area sources (landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating associated with periodic site maintenance activities). These operational emissions were estimated in Table 4 and the SBCAPCD criteria pollutant significance thresholds would not be exceeded. The proposed project would not represent a source of TAC or DPM emissions and would be compatible with the nearby commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT AQ-4: ODOR IMPACTS
During construction, operation of diesel equipment at the site may generate minor odors. These emissions are short-term in nature and would rapidly dissipate in the open air. Due to the temporary nature of construction odors, construction odor impacts would not be significant. The proposed commercial uses would not introduce sources of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
17 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents, January 2022 Limited Update, https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJanuary2022- LimitedUpdates.pdf
Item III.B Page 223 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 20 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SETTING

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND
“Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal, with global surface temperature increasing approximately 1.33 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the last 100 years. Continued warming is projected to increase global average temperature between 2 and 11°F over the next 100 years.

Natural processes and human actions have been identified as the causes of this warming. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. After 1950, however, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning, and deforestation have been responsible for most of the observed temperature increase. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion.

Increases in GHG concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be the main cause of humaninduced climate change. GHG naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHG occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature.

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as GHG because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHG are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water vapor.

CO2 is primarily generated by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. CH4 is emitted from biogenic sources, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation. CH4 is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. N2O is produced by both natural and human related sources. Primary human related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production.

Item III.B Page 224 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 21 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
While the presence of the primary GHG in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO2, CH4, and N2O are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Other GHG include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. Greenhouse gases are typically reported in metric tons of “carbon dioxide-equivalents”(CO2e).18
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHG have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts may include, but are not limited to, loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.

GREENHOUSE GAS REGIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
In 2021, California emitted approximately 381 million metric tons of CO2e, 12 million metric tons of CO2e higher than 2020 levels and 50 million metric tons of CO2e below the 2020 GHG limit of 431 million metric tons of CO2e).19 The transportation sector represented 39 percent of the total GHG emissions. The industrial sector represented 22 percent of the total GHG emissions, followed by electricity (16 percent), and residential, agricultural, and commercial (8, 8, and 6 percent, respectively).

In 2021, California GHG emissions were 12.6 million metric tons of CO2e (3.4 percent) higher than 2020 (368.7 million metric tons of CO2e), but 23.1 million metric tons of CO2e (5.7 percent) lower than 2019 levels (404.4 million metric tons of CO2e). Both the 2019 to 2020 decrease and the 2020 to 2021 increase in emissions are likely due in large part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emissions levels in 2020 are anomalous to the long-term trend, and the one-year increase from 2020 to 2021 should be considered in the broader context of the pandemic and subsequent economic recovery that took place over 2021.20 The City of Santa Barabara completed a communitywide GHG emissions inventory for the year 2019, which indicated GHG emissions in the City were 622,110 metric tons of CO2e. The transportation sector represented 39 percent of the total GHG emissions. The energy sector (electricity and natural gas) represented 41 percent of the total GHG emissions, followed by solid waste (9 percent), and water and wastewater conveyance (less than 1 percent).

REGULATORY SETTING

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The California Green Building Standards Code or CALGreen is a regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings to meet uniform standards in building design intended to minimize impacts on climate change.
18 Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHG, GHG emissions are frequently measured in “carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat absorption (or “global warming”) potential. 19 California Air Resources Board, Emissions Trends Report 2000-2021 (2023 Edition), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data 20 California Air Resources Board, Emissions Trends Report 2000-2021 (2023 Edition), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data Item III.B Page 225 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 22 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
CALGreen does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided, they provide a minimum 50-percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard, which buildings need to meet to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally done by the local building official.

The development of CALGreen is intended to cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; reduce energy and water consumption; and respond to directives issued by the Governor, such as Assembly Bill 32, calling for the reduction of Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In short, CALGreen was established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impacts during and after project construction.

CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. CALGreen provides for design options allowing a project designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition.

CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CLIMATE CHANGE Under CEQA, lead agencies are required to disclose the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects of projects they are considering for approval. GHG emissions have the potential to affect the environment because they contribute to global climate change. In turn, global climate change has the potential to cause sea level rise, alter rainfall and snowfall patterns, and affect habitat.

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 set forth a series of target dates by which Statewide emissions of GHG would be progressively reduced, as follows:
 By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
 By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
 By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Item III.B Page 226 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 23 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
The executive order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to coordinate a multiagency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary will also submit biannual reports to the governor and California Legislature describing the progress made toward the emissions targets, the impacts of global climate change on California’s resources, and mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the executive order, the secretary of CalEPA created the California Climate Action Team, made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. The team released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on the voluntary actions of California businesses, local governments, and communities and through State incentive and regulatory programs.

ASSEMBLY BILL 32 (CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006) California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 - 38599). AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and establishes a cap on Statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that Statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished by enforcing a Statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrived at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the State reduces GHG emissions enough to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance on instituting emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner, along with conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Using these criteria to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would represent an approximate 25 to 30 percent reduction in current emissions levels. However, CARB has discretionary authority to seek greater reductions in more significant and growing GHG sectors, such as transportation, as compared to other sectors that are not anticipated to significantly increase emissions.

Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations to achieve reductions in GHG to meet the 1990 emissions cap by 2020.

CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN
AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce GHG to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by CARB in 2008 and must be updated every five years. The initial AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce the GHG that cause climate change. The initial Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions which include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as a cap-andtrade system, and an AB 32 program implementation fee regulation to fund the program. In August 2011, the initial Scoping Plan was approved by CARB.

Item III.B Page 227 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 24 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
The 2013 Scoping Plan Update builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The 2013 Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The 2013 Update defines CARB climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to reach California's long-term climate goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The 2013 Update highlights California progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the initial Scoping Plan. In the 2013 Update, nine key focus areas were identified (energy, transportation, agriculture, water, waste management, and natural and working lands), along with shortlived climate pollutants, green buildings, and the cap-and-trade program. On May 22, 2014, the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by the Board, along with the finalized environmental documents. On November 30, 2017, the Second Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB.

CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2022. The three previous scoping plans focused on specific GHG reduction targets for the state’s industrial, energy, and transportation sectors — first to meet 1990 levels by 2020, then to meet the more aggressive target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The 2022 Scoping Plan addresses recent legislation and direction from Governor Newsom, extending and expanding upon earlier scoping plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Executive Order No. B-30-15 was issued to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order No. B-30-15 sets a new, interim, 2030 reduction goal intended to provide a smooth transition to the existing ultimate 2050 reduction goal set by Executive Order No. S-3-05 (signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in June 2005). It is designed so State agencies do not fall behind the pace of reductions necessary to reach the existing 2050 reduction goal. Executive Order No. B-30-15 orders “All State agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions shall implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets.” The Executive Order also states that “CARB shall update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.” The CARB is currently moving forward with a second update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 reduction target. The updated Scoping Plan will provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target. In September of 2016, the AB 32 was extended to achieve reductions in GHG of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The new plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries.

LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD
Under the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the CARB identified the LCFS as one of the nine discrete early action measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The LCFS is designed to decrease the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuel pool and provide an increasing range of low-carbon and renewable alternatives, which reduce petroleum dependency and achieve air quality benefits.

Item III.B Page 228 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 25 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
In 2018, the CARB approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector.

RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
In 2002, a California State law established the basic policy framework for the increased use of renewable energy resources in California, known as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). RPS requires renewable energy resources serve a certain percentage of electricity sales by all electricity utilities in the state, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. California State legislation have steadily increased the renewable energy target, most recently from SB 100 (September 2018) which increased the RPS targets to 60 percent of California’s electricity by 2030 and 100 percent of all retail electricity sold in California by 2045.

SENATE BILL 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

SENATE BILL 100
SB 100 mandates that the CPUC, CEC, and CARB plan for 100 percent of total retail sales of electricity in California to come from eligible renewable energy resources and zero carbon resources by December 31, 2045. SB 100 also updates the state’s RPS to include the following interim targets:
 44% of retail sales procured from eligible renewable sources by December 31, 2024.  52% of retail sales procured from eligible renewable sources by December 31, 2027.  60% of retail sales procured from eligible renewable sources by December 31, 2030.

Under SB 100, the CPUC, CEC, and CARB shall use programs under existing laws to achieve 100 percent clean electricity. The statute requires these agencies to issue a joint policy report on SB 100 every four years. The first of these reports was issued in 2021.

Item III.B Page 229 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 26 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), serving as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for the Santa Barbara County region is responsible for developing and maintaining a long-range transportation plan for the region. In California, these plans are typically called Regional Transportation Plans and are required to be updated every four years.

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a long-range planning document that defines how the region plans to invest in the transportation system over 20+ years based on regional goals, multi-modal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding. The RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by SB 375.

The SCS is a component of the RTP, required by SB 375 (2008), that sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets set by the CARB. The future land use and transportation scenario presented in the SCS must accommodate forecast population, employment, and housing sufficient to meet the needs of all economic segments of the population, including the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), while considering State housing goals.

In August 2021, the SBCAG Board of Directors adopted Connected 205021, the region’s current Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The City of Santa Barbara adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2024, called Together to Zero, which outlines a comprehensive suite of short- and long-term actions the City plans to take to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2035. The CAP will act as the City’s climate roadmap for the next 10 years, and lays a strong foundation for achieving the City’s carbon neutrality goal. Designed to be a living document, the CAP will be updated based on the City’s needs and progress on action items. The CAP focuses on the following sectors: Building Energy Use; Transportation; Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste; Carbon Sequestration; and Community Potential.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The standards of significance applied to the analysis of potential GHG impacts are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G evaluation thresholds, the proposed project would be considered to have significant GHG emissions impacts if it were to:
 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment; or
21 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Connected 2050, Regional Transportation Plan Sustainable Communities Strategy, August 2021.

Item III.B Page 230 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 27 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA.

With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.

In addition, Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines § 15130(f)). As a note, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to SB 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.

Item III.B Page 231 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 28 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
As noted above, the City of Santa Barabara adopted its CAP Update in 2024. The City’s CAP Update is a “qualified GHG reduction plan” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Appendix D of the CAP, Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, provides methodological guidance and quantitative thresholds of significance for use by City planners, project applicants, consultants, agencies, and members of the public in the preparation of GHG emissions analyses under CEQA for projects located within the City.

Projects that are substantially consistent with the underlying demographic projections (i.e., residents and employees) and land use assumptions used in the CAP Update will be able to tier from the adopted CAP Update Initial Study-Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The CAP Update relied on the SBCAG Connected 2050 projections and the land use assumptions for existing uses and densities allowed by land use designations in the City of Santa Barbara General Plan, including the Land Use Element and any associated amendments current as of 2023, and the 2023-2031 Housing Element. In addition, the assumptions account for the maximum buildout allowed by existing zoning districts, zoning overlays, and municipal code ordinances that increase density on top of the baseline density.

Because the proposed project has existing natural gas infrastructure and the proposed project is merely an addition to the existing hotel, the proposed project cannot tier from the existing programmatic environmental review for the CAP Update using the City’s CEQA GHG Checklist for determining project consistency with the CAP Update, because abandoning the existing natural gas infrastructure is not feasible.

The City of Santa Barbara’s Master Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions states that “If the CEQA GHG Checklist does not demonstrate conformance with the CAP Update, a project can be evaluated using quantitative CEQA GHG thresholds derived from the assumptions of the CAP Update. If that project’s GHG emissions are at or below the applicable quantitative threshold and it has an initial operation year before 2030, the City can determine that the plan would result in a less-thansignificant GHG emissions impact.” Therefore, this analysis compares the proposed project’s emissions to the City’s quantitative CEQA thresholds in the CAP Update to determine significance rather than tiering from the City’s CAP per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The CAP Update provides CEQA GHG thresholds for residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use projects and notes hotel uses fall under both residential and non-residential categories. Given that the proposed project includes both short-term residents and increases jobs, the proposed project emissions divided by service population (residents plus jobs) are compared to the City’s mixed-use threshold of 2.13 metric tons of CO2e per service person. Since the proposed project would be operational prior to 2030, if the proposed project GHG emissions are at or below the threshold, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP Update and would have a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact.

Item III.B Page 232 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 29 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

IMPACT ANALYSIS
IMPACT GHG-1: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IMPACTS

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS ESTIMATES
The proposed project would emit approximately 520 metric tons of CO2e during construction. The estimated 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be approximately 17.3 metric tons of CO2e. GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction are a one-time release and would not pose a significant impact to the environment.

Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g. landscape maintenance) as well as vehicle trips, energy use, water use/wastewater conveyance, refrigerants, and solid waste disposal. Table 5 presents the annual operational net GHG emissions (project minus existing baseline) generated by the project (including amortized construction emissions), which would be approximately 213 metric tons of CO2e per year. Existing baseline GHG emissions currently generated from the 10 guest rooms, the existing tennis shop and courts, and the existing 4,027 SF Building A to be demolished under the proposed project were also calculated and deducted from the overall project emissions included in Table 5.

Table 5
Estimated Annual Project GHG Emissions (metric tons of CO2e per year) Source Metric tons of CO2e
Existing Baseline Operations b
All Sources 32.7
Project Construction
Amortized Construction Emissions 17.3
Project Operations b
Mobile Sources (vehicles) 63.9
Area Sources 0.7
Energy Use 137.8
Water Use/Wastewater 2.8
Refrigerants 13.0
Solid Waste Disposal 10.4
Total Annual Net Project Emissions 213.2
Service Population a 112.9
Project Efficiency 1.89
City’s Efficiency Threshold 2.13
Significant? No

Notes: (a) The service population was calculated using hotel-specific data that indicates an average of 1.7 guests per room and 72.9% occupancy plus 10 jobs. (b) Mobile, Energy, Solid Waste, and Water/Wastewater emissions were adjusted to reflect 72.9% occupancy under both the project and existing baseline.

Item III.B Page 233 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 30 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025
Source: CAPCOA, 2022.

As shown in Table 5, the proposed project would be below the City’s mixed-use GHG Efficiency threshold of 2.13 metric tons of CO2e per service person. Since the proposed project would be operational prior to 2030 and the proposed project GHG emissions are below the threshold, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP Update and would have a less-than-significant GHG emissions impact.

Furthermore, the City’s Efficiency thresholds were calculated for the year 2030 to provide GHG emissions thresholds for new development in line with the State’s milestone target for year 2030. Therefore, the proposed project would also not conflict with State plans adopted for reducing GHG emissions.

CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in the analysis above, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Update and with State goals and regulations adopted for reducing GHG emissions. The goals, policies, and strategies within the CAP Update and State regulations address the proposed project’s incremental contribution to climate change and thus the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Item III.B Page 234 of 388
SANTA BARBARA HILTON HOTEL EXPANSION PROJECT 31 AQ & GHG EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT CITY OF SANTA BARBARA MARCH 2025

CONCLUSIONS

AIR QUALITY
The proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the 2022 Ozone Plan. Construction-related emissions would be below the SBCAPCD significance thresholds, and the proposed project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for Air Quality and Dust Control.

Operational emissions of the proposed project would not exceed the SBCAPCD thresholds. The proposed project would result in less than significant health risk and odor impacts. All air quality impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

GHG EMISSIONS
The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Update and with State goals and regulations adopted for reducing GHG emissions. The goals, policies, and strategies within the CAP Update and State regulations address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and thus the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Item III.B Page 235 of 388

SANTA BARBARA

HILTON HOTEL

EXPANSION PROJECT
Appendix A
Air Quality Supporting Information
I. CALEEMOD DETAILED EMISSIONS OUTPUT
A. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
B. EXISTING BASELINE EMISSIONS
C. PROJECT EMISSIONS
Item III.B Page 236 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
1 / 56
SB Hilton Hotel Construction 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 Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
A
Item III.B Page 237 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
2 / 56

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

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 Item III.B Page 238 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
3 / 56

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

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
Item III.B Page 239 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
4 / 56

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

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
Item III.B Page 240 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
5 / 56

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Item III.B Page 241 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
6 / 56

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SB Hilton Hotel Construction
Construction Start Date 1/15/2026
Lead Agency City of Santa Barbara
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 22.8
Location 34.41641848564865, -119.67973736142739
County Santa Barbara
City Santa Barbara
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3357
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
Hotel 83.0 Room 2.77 50,195 30,000 0.00 — —
Recreational
Swimming Pool

5.50 1000sqft 0.13 5,500 0.00 0.00 — —
Item III.B Page 242 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
7 / 56
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

24.0 1000sqft 0.55 0.00 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 * 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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.80 2.35 20.9 19.6 0.03 0.85 0.28 1.13 0.78 0.05 0.83 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.05 0.90 3,669 Mit. 2.80 2.35 20.9 19.6 0.03 0.85 0.28 1.13 0.78 0.05 0.83 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.05 0.90 3,669 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 53.3 52.9 29.5 29.5 0.05 1.25 20.0 21.3 1.15 10.2 11.3 — 5,602 5,602 0.23 0.22 0.07 5,631 Mit. 53.3 52.9 29.5 29.5 0.05 1.25 8.06 9.30 1.15 4.01 5.16 — 5,602 5,602 0.23 0.22 0.07 5,631 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 60% 56% — 61% 54% — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 243 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
8 / 56
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 3.25 3.10 6.94 9.91 0.02 0.24 1.78 2.02 0.22 0.87 1.10 — 1,907 1,907 0.08 0.03 0.28 1,919 Mit. 3.25 3.10 6.94 9.91 0.02 0.24 0.75 0.99 0.22 0.35 0.58 — 1,907 1,907 0.08 0.03 0.28 1,919 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 60% 47% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.59 0.57 1.27 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 0.37 0.04 0.16 0.20 — 316 316 0.01 0.01 0.05 318 Mit. 0.59 0.57 1.27 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.14 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.11 — 316 316 0.01 0.01 0.05 318 %
Reduced
— — — — — — 58% 51% — 60% 47% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.80 2.35 20.9 19.6 0.03 0.85 0.28 1.13 0.78 0.05 0.83 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.05 0.63 3,669 2027 1.34 1.13 9.69 13.8 0.02 0.34 0.19 0.52 0.31 0.05 0.36 — 2,694 2,694 0.11 0.05 0.90 2,712 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.83 3.22 29.5 29.5 0.05 1.25 20.0 21.3 1.15 10.2 11.3 — 5,602 5,602 0.23 0.22 0.07 5,631 2027 53.3 52.9 16.7 24.6 0.04 0.60 0.34 0.94 0.55 0.08 0.63 — 4,322 4,322 0.18 0.07 0.04 4,346 2028 51.0 51.0 0.82 1.26 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 161 161 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 162 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.79 0.66 6.00 6.12 0.01 0.24 1.78 2.02 0.22 0.87 1.10 — 1,202 1,202 0.05 0.03 0.15 1,212 2027 3.25 3.10 6.94 9.91 0.02 0.24 0.13 0.38 0.22 0.03 0.26 — 1,907 1,907 0.08 0.03 0.28 1,919 Item III.B Page 244 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
9 / 56
2028 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.15 3.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.16 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.14 0.12 1.10 1.12 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 0.37 0.04 0.16 0.20 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 201 2027 0.59 0.57 1.27 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 316 316 0.01 0.01 0.05 318 2028 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.80 2.35 20.9 19.6 0.03 0.85 0.28 1.13 0.78 0.05 0.83 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.05 0.63 3,669 2027 1.34 1.13 9.69 13.8 0.02 0.34 0.19 0.52 0.31 0.05 0.36 — 2,694 2,694 0.11 0.05 0.90 2,712 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.83 3.22 29.5 29.5 0.05 1.25 8.06 9.30 1.15 4.01 5.16 — 5,602 5,602 0.23 0.22 0.07 5,631 2027 53.3 52.9 16.7 24.6 0.04 0.60 0.34 0.94 0.55 0.08 0.63 — 4,322 4,322 0.18 0.07 0.04 4,346 2028 51.0 51.0 0.82 1.26 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 161 161 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 162 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.79 0.66 6.00 6.12 0.01 0.24 0.75 0.99 0.22 0.35 0.58 — 1,202 1,202 0.05 0.03 0.15 1,212 2027 3.25 3.10 6.94 9.91 0.02 0.24 0.13 0.38 0.22 0.03 0.26 — 1,907 1,907 0.08 0.03 0.28 1,919 2028 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.15 3.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.16 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.14 0.12 1.10 1.12 < 0.005 0.04 0.14 0.18 0.04 0.06 0.11 — 199 199 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 201 2027 0.59 0.57 1.27 1.81 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 316 316 0.01 0.01 0.05 318 2028 0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 Item III.B Page 245 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
10 / 56

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.34 0.29 2.60 2.40 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 432 432 0.02 < 0.005 — 433 Item III.B Page 246 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
11 / 56
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 71.5 71.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 71.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.39 94.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 0.02 0.24 137 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.5 90.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 0.02 0.01 137 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.6 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 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 17.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92 Item III.B Page 247 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
12 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.72 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.85

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

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.72 2.29 20.7 19.0 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.34 0.29 2.60 2.40 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 432 432 0.02 < 0.005 — 433 Item III.B Page 248 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
13 / 56
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 71.5 71.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 71.7 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 92.4 92.4 0.01 < 0.005 0.39 94.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 0.02 0.24 137 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.5 90.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 0.01 0.02 0.01 137 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.6 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 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 17.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.89 1.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.92 Item III.B Page 249 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
14 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.72 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.85

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.24 0.20 1.84 1.82 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 < 0.005 — 335 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.24 1.24 — 0.64 0.64 — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 250 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
15 / 56
Demoliti — — — — — — 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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 55.3 55.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.12 0.12 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 198 198 0.01 0.03 0.01 207 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 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 Item

0.00 III.B Page

0.00 251

0.00 of 388

0.00 0.00
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
16 / 56
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.74 3.14 29.2 28.8 0.05 1.24 — 1.24 1.14 — 1.14 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.24 0.20 1.84 1.82 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 334 334 0.01 < 0.005 — 335 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.48 0.48 — 0.25 0.25 — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 252 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
17 / 56
Demoliti — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — on
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.04 0.34 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 55.3 55.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.5 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 107 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.28 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 198 198 0.01 0.03 0.01 207 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.66 6.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.12 Item III.B Page 253 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
18 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.07 2.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17

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

1.96 1.65 15.0 17.4 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.09 7.09 — 3.43 3.43 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.94 1.10 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 186 186 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.45 0.45 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 254 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
19 / 56
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.5 90.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.68 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.10 — 1,201 1,201 0.06 0.19 0.06 1,258 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.71 5.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75.6 75.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 79.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Item III.B Page 255 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
20 / 56
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.96 1.65 15.0 17.4 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.12 0.10 0.94 1.10 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 186 186 0.01 < 0.005 — 187 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.17 0.17 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.17 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 30.9 30.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.0 Item III.B Page 256 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
21 / 56
Dust — — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 90.5 90.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 91.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.02 1.68 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.30 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.10 — 1,201 1,201 0.06 0.19 0.06 1,258 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.71 5.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 75.6 75.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 79.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.95 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.96 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.1

3.7. 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 TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 257 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
22 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.44 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.02 143 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 159 159 0.01 0.02 0.01 166 Item III.B Page 258 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
23 / 56
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.36 6.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.47 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.49 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.44 0.58 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 108 108 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 108 Item III.B Page 259 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
24 / 56
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 0.01 0.01 0.02 143 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 159 159 0.01 0.02 0.01 166 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.36 6.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.47 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.49 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.05 1.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.24 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 260 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
25 / 56
Onsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

0.83 0.69 6.30 8.68 0.02 0.23— 0.23 0.21— 0.21— 1,609 1,609 0.07 0.01— 1,615 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.13 1.15 1.58 < 0.005 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 266 266 0.01 < 0.005— 267 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Item III.B Page 261 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
26 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 < 0.005 0.01 0.55 144 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 0.01 0.02 0.35 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.01 141 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 0.01 0.02 0.01 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.1 93.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 94.7 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.02 0.10 109 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 262 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
27 / 56
Off-Roa 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.83 0.69 6.30 8.68 0.02 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,609 1,609 0.07 0.01 — 1,615 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.13 1.15 1.58 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 266 266 0.01 < 0.005 — 267 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 < 0.005 0.01 0.55 144 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 0.01 0.02 0.35 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 263 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
28 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.01 141 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 156 156 0.01 0.02 0.01 163 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.1 93.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 94.7 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 105 105 < 0.005 0.02 0.10 109 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3 17.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 18.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 264 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
29 / 56
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.1 85.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 85.4 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 265 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
30 / 56
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.24 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.38 0.56 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 85.1 85.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 85.4 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 266 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
31 / 56
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 d
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.47 7.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.24 1.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.26 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 267 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
32 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

50.9 50.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.01 6.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.03 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.29 2.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.99 0.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.42 0.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 268 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
33 / 56
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 269 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
34 / 56
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

50.9 50.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.01 6.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.03 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.29 2.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.99 0.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.00 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.42 0.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 270 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
35 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.7 27.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 28.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.25 1.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.21 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Item III.B Page 271 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
36 / 56
Architect 50.9 50.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.00 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.18 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.6 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 Item

0.00 III.B Page

0.00 272

0.00 of 388

0.00 0.00
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
37 / 56
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.13 0.11 0.81 1.12 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s

50.9 50.9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 273 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
38 / 56
Off-Roa
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.61 2.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.00 1.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.18 0.18 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.6 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 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — —Item —III.B Page — 274 — of 388— — SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
39 / 56
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 275 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
40 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 276 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
41 / 56
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Item III.B Page 277 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
42 / 56
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 278 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
43 / 56
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 8/3/2026 10/5/2026 5.00 46.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/06/2026 11/5/2026 5.00 23.0 — Grading Grading 11/06/2026 12/8/2026 5.00 23.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 12/09/2026 12/09/2027 5.00 262 — Paving Paving 11/09/2027 12/9/2027 5.00 23.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/09/2027 1/10/2028 5.00 23.0 — Item III.B Page 279 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
44 / 56

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 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 Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Item III.B Page 280 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
45 / 56

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 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 Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Item III.B Page 281 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
46 / 56

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 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.80 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 2.74 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.6 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 23.4 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 9.13 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Item III.B Page 282 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
47 / 56
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.68 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.30 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 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 1.80 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 2.74 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 16.6 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 23.4 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 9.13 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Item III.B Page 283 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
48 / 56
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.68 8.80 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 5.30 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 75,293 25,098 1,440

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Yards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Yards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building
Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,167 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 34.5 250 —
Item III.B Page 284 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
49 / 56
Grading 0.00 3,050 45.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55

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
Hotel 0.00 0%
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.55 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

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 Item III.B Page 285 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
50 / 56

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)

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 6.51 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 21.1 annual hectares burned
Item III.B Page 286 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
51 / 56
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 N/A N/A N/A 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 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Item III.B Page 287 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
52 / 56
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 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 —
AQ-Ozone 22.2
AQ-PM 16.8
AQ-DPM 78.8
Drinking Water 17.3
Lead Risk Housing 68.6
Pesticides 54.6
Toxic Releases 10.1
Traffic 53.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 90.0
Groundwater 99.8
Item III.B Page 288 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
53 / 56
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.7
Impaired Water Bodies 83.0
Solid Waste 96.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 50.5
Cardio-vascular 19.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 73.4
Housing 69.9
Linguistic 66.6
Poverty 67.6
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.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 21.36532786
Employed 90.05517772
Median HI 48.20993199
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 40.3567304
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 23.02065957
Transportation —
Auto Access 45.25856538
Active commuting 93.31451302
Item III.B Page 289 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
54 / 56
Social —
2-parent households 33.45309893
Voting 68.15090466
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 14.42320031
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 89.69588092
Supermarket access 86.74451431
Tree canopy 44.74528423
Housing —
Homeownership 17.01527011
Housing habitability 9.90632619
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 3.644296163 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 79.07096112
Uncrowded housing 5.081483383
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 2.65622995
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 49.5
High Blood Pressure 58.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 66.1
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 31.2
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 27.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 31.7
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Item III.B Page 290 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
55 / 56
Heart Attack ER Admissions 95.8
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 21.9
Pedestrian Injuries 71.4
Physical Health Not Good 24.5
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 26.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.1
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.1
SLR Inundation Area 46.6
Children 78.7
Elderly 74.7
English Speaking 21.4
Foreign-born 82.3
Outdoor Workers 11.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 53.4
Traffic Density 62.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 79.6
Other Decision Support—
2016 Voting 66.3
Item III.B Page 291 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel Construction Detailed Report, 3/6/2025
56 / 56

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 71.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes 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
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 AB Design Studio, 2024
Construction: Construction Phases AB Design Studio, 2024 Construction: Demolition AB Design Studio, 2024
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the City's Traffic Model and peak hour PM rate of 0.33 trips per 1,000 SF. Peak hour assumed to be 10% of daily trips.

Construction: Dust From Material Movement 3,050 cubic yards of soil export Item III.B Page 292 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 1 / 48
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
B
Item III.B Page 293 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 2 / 48

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

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated
Item III.B Page 294 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 3 / 48

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

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources
Item III.B Page 295 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 4 / 48

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

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated
Item III.B Page 296 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 5 / 48

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
Item III.B Page 297 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 6 / 48

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
Item III.B Page 298 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency City of Santa Barbara
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 22.8
Location 34.41641848564865, -119.67973736142739
County Santa Barbara
City Santa Barbara
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3357
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
Hotel 10.0 Room 0.33 6,927 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

8.08 1000sqft 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Item III.B Page 299 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 8 / 48
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.47 1000sqft 0.01 0.00 0.00 — — —
Racquet Club 0.24 1000sqft 0.01 240 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 * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.36 0.35 0.11 0.78 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 247 251 0.39 0.01 11.1 274 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.31 0.30 0.11 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 4.26 244 249 0.39 0.01 10.8 271 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.33 0.32 0.11 0.62 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 239 244 0.39 0.01 10.9 266 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 39.6 40.3 0.06 < 0.005 1.81 44.1 Item III.B Page 300 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 9 / 48

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.8 81.8 0.01 < 0.005 0.27 83.7 Area 0.26 0.25 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.36 0.35 0.11 0.78 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 247 251 0.39 0.01 11.1 274 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 80.7 80.7 0.01 0.01 0.01 82.4 Area 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.31 0.30 0.11 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 4.26 244 249 0.39 0.01 10.8 271 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 75.0 75.0 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 76.7 Area 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.63 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00
Item

3.69 III.B Page

0.37 301

0.00 of 388— 12.9
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 10 / 48
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.33 0.32 0.11 0.62 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 239 244 0.39 0.01 10.9 266 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7 Area 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.06 0.00 — 2.14 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79
Total 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 39.6 40.3 0.06 < 0.005 1.81 44.1

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.8 81.8 0.01 < 0.005 0.27 83.7 Area 0.26 0.25 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.36 0.35 0.11 0.78 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 247 251 0.39 0.01 11.1 274 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 80.7 80.7 0.01 0.01 0.01 82.4 Area 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 302 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 11 / 48
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.31 0.30 0.11 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 4.26 244 249 0.39 0.01 10.8 271 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 75.0 75.0 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 76.7 Area 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.63 0.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.63 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Total 0.33 0.32 0.11 0.62 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.02 4.26 239 244 0.39 0.01 10.9 266 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7 Area 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.06 0.00 — 2.14 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79
Total 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 39.6 40.3 0.06 < 0.005 1.81 44.1

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item III.B Page 303 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 12 / 48
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 60.5 60.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 61.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Racquet
Club

0.02 0.02 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 21.8 Total 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.8 81.8 0.01 < 0.005 0.27 83.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 59.7 59.7 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 61.0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Racquet
Club

0.02 0.02 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 21.0 21.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.4 Total 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 80.7 80.7 0.01 0.01 0.01 82.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.88 9.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 304 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 13 / 48
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54 2.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Total 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 60.5 60.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 61.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Racquet
Club

0.02 0.02 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 21.8 Total 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.8 81.8 0.01 < 0.005 0.27 83.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 59.7 59.7 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 61.0 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 305 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 14 / 48
Racquet
Club

0.02 0.02 0.01 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 21.0 21.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 21.4 Total 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 80.7 80.7 0.01 0.01 0.01 82.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.88 9.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.1 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54 2.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.59 Total 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.4 12.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.7

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 91.9 91.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 92.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 94.0
Item

94.0 III.B Page

0.01 306
< 0.005
of 388— 94.5
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 15 / 48
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 91.9 91.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 92.4 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 94.0 94.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 94.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.35 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 91.9 91.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 92.4 Item III.B Page 307 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 16 / 48
Other———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Racquet
Club
———————————— 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005— 2.13
Total———————————— 94.0 94.0 0.01 < 0.005— 94.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel———————————— 91.9 91.9 0.01 < 0.005— 92.4
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Racquet
Club
———————————— 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005— 2.13
Total———————————— 94.0 94.0 0.01 < 0.005— 94.5
Annual——————————————————
Hotel———————————— 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005— 15.3
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Racquet
Club
———————————— 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005— 0.35
Total———————————— 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005— 15.7
Item III.B Page 308 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 17 / 48

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 64.9 64.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 65.1 Other
Non-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 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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.2 68.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 64.9 64.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 65.1 Other
Non-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 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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.2 68.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Item III.B Page 309 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 18 / 48
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.54 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 64.9 64.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 65.1 Other
Non-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 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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.2 68.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 64.9 64.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 65.1 Other
Non-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 Item III.B Page 310 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 19 / 48
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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.2 68.2 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Other
Non-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 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 Racquet
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.54 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.3

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 311 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 20 / 48
Landsca
Equipment

0.06 0.05 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Total 0.26 0.25 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 Total 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 312 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 21 / 48
Consum
Products

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Total 0.26 0.25 < 0.005 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.28 1.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.29 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.15 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.05 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.03 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 Total 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.11 Item III.B Page 313 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 22 / 48

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 1.30 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 1.30 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 Item III.B Page 314 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 23 / 48
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 1.30 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.54 1.30 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Item III.B Page 315 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 24 / 48
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.13 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.37 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.38 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.22 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.09 0.23 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.39

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 2.95 0.00 2.95 0.29 0.00 — 10.3 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Item III.B Page 316 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 25 / 48
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.07 0.00 — 2.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 2.95 0.00 2.95 0.29 0.00 — 10.3 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.07 0.00 — 2.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00 — 12.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.49 0.00 0.49 0.05 0.00 — 1.71 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 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
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 — 0.43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.06 0.00 — 2.14

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 317 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 26 / 48
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Hotel——————————— 2.95 0.00 2.95 0.29 0.00— 10.3
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 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
Racquet
Club
——————————— 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.07 0.00— 2.58
Total——————————— 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00— 12.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel——————————— 2.95 0.00 2.95 0.29 0.00— 10.3
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 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
Racquet
Club
——————————— 0.74 0.00 0.74 0.07 0.00— 2.58
Total——————————— 3.69 0.00 3.69 0.37 0.00— 12.9
Annual——————————————————
Hotel——————————— 0.49 0.00 0.49 0.05 0.00— 1.71
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 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
Item III.B Page 318 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 27 / 48
Racquet — — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 — 0.43 Club
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.06 0.00 — 2.14

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item III.B Page 319 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 28 / 48
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 10.8
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79
Racquet
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.79 1.79

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Item III.B Page 320 of 388 SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 29 / 48
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 321 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 30 / 48
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 322 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 31 / 48
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) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item III.B Page 323 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 32 / 48
Vegetati TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e on
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
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 324 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 33 / 48
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Item III.B Page 325 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 34 / 48
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — —Item —III.B Page — 326 — of 388— — SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 35 / 48

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 327 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 36 / 48
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ered
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 22.9 22.9 22.9 8,359 76.2 76.2 76.2 27,828
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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
Racquet Club 3.37 5.12 4.18 1,363 18.1 27.6 22.5 7,343

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 22.9 22.9 22.9 8,359 76.2 76.2 76.2 27,828
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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
Racquet Club 3.37 5.12 4.18 1,363 18.1 27.6 22.5 7,343
Item III.B Page 328 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 37 / 48

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

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)
0 0.00 10,751 3,584 513

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) Hotel 96,874 346 0.0330 0.0040 202,644
Item III.B Page 329 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 38 / 48
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Racquet Club 2,232 346 0.0330 0.0040 10,236

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 96,874 346 0.0330 0.0040 202,644
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Racquet Club 2,232 346 0.0330 0.0040 10,236

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 253,668 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Racquet Club 14,194 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 253,668 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Racquet Club 14,194 0.00
Item III.B Page 330 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 39 / 48

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 5.47 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Racquet Club 1.37 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 5.47 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Racquet Club 1.37 —

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 Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Item III.B Page 331 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 40 / 48
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Racquet Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Racquet Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Item
Horsepower
III.B Page 332
Load Factor
of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 41 / 48

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Item III.B Page 333 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 42 / 48
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)

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 6.51 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 21.1 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0
Item III.B Page
N/A
334 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 43 / 48
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
Item III.B Page 335 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 44 / 48

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 —
AQ-Ozone 22.2
AQ-PM 16.8
AQ-DPM 78.8
Drinking Water 17.3
Lead Risk Housing 68.6
Pesticides 54.6
Toxic Releases 10.1
Traffic 53.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 90.0
Groundwater 99.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.7
Impaired Water Bodies 83.0
Solid Waste 96.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 50.5
Cardio-vascular 19.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 73.4
Housing 69.9
Linguistic 66.6
Poverty 67.6
Unemployment 15.8
Item III.B Page 336 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 45 / 48

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.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 21.36532786
Employed 90.05517772
Median HI 48.20993199
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 40.3567304
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 23.02065957
Transportation —
Auto Access 45.25856538
Active commuting 93.31451302
Social —
2-parent households 33.45309893
Voting 68.15090466
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 14.42320031
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 89.69588092
Supermarket access 86.74451431
Tree canopy 44.74528423
Housing —
Homeownership 17.01527011
Housing habitability 9.90632619
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 3.644296163 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 79.07096112
Item III.B Page 337 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 46 / 48
Uncrowded housing 5.081483383
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 2.65622995
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 49.5
High Blood Pressure 58.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 66.1
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 31.2
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 27.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 31.7
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 95.8
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 21.9
Pedestrian Injuries 71.4
Physical Health Not Good 24.5
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 26.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.1
SLR Inundation Area 46.6
Item III.B Page 338 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 47 / 48
Children 78.7
Elderly 74.7
English Speaking 21.4
Foreign-born 82.3
Outdoor Workers 11.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 53.4
Traffic Density 62.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 79.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 66.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 71.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes 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
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

Item III.B Page 339 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Existing Baseline Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 48 / 48

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use AB Design Studio, 2024
Construction: Construction Phases AB Design Studio, 2024 Construction: Demolition AB Design Studio, 2024
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the City's Traffic Model and peak hour PM rate of 0.33 trips per 1,000 SF. Peak hour assumed to be 10% of daily trips.

Item III.B Page 340 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 1 / 48
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
c
Item III.B Page 341 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 2 / 48

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

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
Item III.B Page 342 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 3 / 48

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

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Item III.B Page 343 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 4 / 48

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

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
Item III.B Page 344 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 5 / 48

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Item III.B Page 345 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 6 / 48

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
Item III.B Page 346 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency City of Santa Barbara
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.40
Precipitation (days) 22.8
Location 34.41641848564865, -119.67973736142739
County Santa Barbara
City Santa Barbara
Air District Santa Barbara County APCD
Air Basin South Central Coast
TAZ 3357
EDFZ 8
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.29

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
Hotel 83.0 Room 2.77 50,195 30,000 0.00 — —
Recreational
Swimming Pool

5.50 1000sqft 0.13 5,500 0.00 0.00 — —
Item III.B Page 347 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 8 / 48
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

24.0 1000sqft 0.55 0.00 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 Area Sources LL-1 Replace Gas Powered Landscape Equipment with Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment
* Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results.

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.44 2.35 0.72 5.13 0.01 0.04 0.47 0.51 0.04 0.12 0.16 29.7 1,685 1,715 2.61 0.05 80.2 1,875 Mit. 2.05 2.00 0.70 2.95 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,678 1,707 2.61 0.05 80.2 1,868 %
Reduced
16% 15% 3% 43% — 10% — 1% 8% — 2% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — < 0.5% Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.05 2.00 0.73 3.18 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,669 1,699 2.61 0.05 78.5 1,858 Mit. 2.05 2.00 0.73 3.18 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,669 1,699 2.61 0.05 78.5 1,858 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 348 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 9 / 48
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.24 2.17 0.74 4.14 0.01 0.04 0.47 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,673 1,703 2.61 0.05 79.2 1,863 Mit. 2.05 1.99 0.73 3.07 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,670 1,699 2.61 0.05 79.2 1,859 %
Reduced
9% 8% 1% 26% — 5% — < 0.5% 4% — 1% — < 0.5% < 0.5% — — — < 0.5% Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.76 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 4.91 277 282 0.43 0.01 13.1 308 Mit. 0.37 0.36 0.13 0.56 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 4.91 276 281 0.43 0.01 13.1 308 %
Reduced
9% 8% 1% 26% 1% 5% — < 0.5% 4% — 1% — < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% < 0.5% — < 0.5%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Area 1.79 1.76 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.98 8.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.01 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,136 1,136 0.11 0.01 — 1,142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.44 2.35 0.72 5.13 0.01 0.04 0.47 0.51 0.04 0.12 0.16 29.7 1,685 1,715 2.61 0.05 80.2 1,875 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Item III.B Page 349 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 10 / 48
Area 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,136 1,136 0.11 0.01 — 1,142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.05 2.00 0.73 3.18 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,669 1,699 2.61 0.05 78.5 1,858 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.57 0.33 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.74 530 Area 1.59 1.57 0.01 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.43 4.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.44 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,136 1,136 0.11 0.01 — 1,142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.24 2.17 0.74 4.14 0.01 0.04 0.47 0.50 0.04 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,673 1,703 2.61 0.05 79.2 1,863 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7 Area 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 188 188 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.86 2.28 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.79 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0
Total 0.41 0.40 0.13 0.76 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 4.91 277 282 0.43 0.01 13.1 308

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 350 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 11 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Area 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,138 1,138 0.11 0.01 — 1,143 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.05 2.00 0.70 2.95 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,678 1,707 2.61 0.05 80.2 1,868 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Area 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,136 1,136 0.11 0.01 — 1,142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.05 2.00 0.73 3.18 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.51 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,669 1,699 2.61 0.05 78.5 1,858 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.57 0.33 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.74 530 Area 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,137 1,137 0.11 0.01 — 1,142 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Total 2.05 1.99 0.73 3.07 0.01 0.03 0.47 0.50 0.03 0.12 0.15 29.7 1,670 1,699 2.61 0.05 79.2 1,859 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 351 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 12 / 48
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7 Area 0.25 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 188 188 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.86 2.28 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.79 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0
Total 0.37 0.36 0.13 0.56 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 4.91 276 281 0.43 0.01 13.1 308

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 352 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 13 / 48
Hotel 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item III.B Page 353 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 14 / 48
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.61 0.58 0.31 2.61 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 526 526 0.04 0.03 1.71 538 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.61 0.58 0.34 2.85 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.48 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 519 519 0.04 0.03 0.04 529 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 85.9 85.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 87.7

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item III.B Page 354 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 15 / 48
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel———————————— 666 666 0.06 0.01— 670
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ngPool
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 666 666 0.06 0.01— 670
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Hotel———————————— 666 666 0.06 0.01— 670
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ngPool
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 666 666 0.06 0.01— 670
Annual——————————————————
Hotel———————————— 110 110 0.01 < 0.005— 111
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ngPool
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 110
Item
110
III.B Page

0.01 355
< 0.005
of 388
— 111
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 16 / 48

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 667 667 0.06 0.01 — 671
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 667 667 0.06 0.01 — 671
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 666 666 0.06 0.01 — 670
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 666 666 0.06 0.01 — 670
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Item III.B Page 356 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 17 / 48
Recreati — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 onal
Swimmi
ng
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 110 110 0.01 < 0.005 — 111

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Item III.B Page 357 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 18 / 48
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 77.9 77.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.1 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 77.9 77.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.1

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Item III.B Page 358 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 19 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hotel 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.04 0.02 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 471 471 0.04 < 0.005 — 472 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 77.9 77.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.1 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool

0.00 0.00 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
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 77.9 77.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 78.1

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 359 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 20 / 48
Consum 1.08 1.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.39 0.36 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.98 8.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.01 Total 1.79 1.76 0.02 2.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.98 8.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.01 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.08 1.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Total 0.29 0.29 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 Item III.B Page 360 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 21 / 48

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

1.08 1.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

1.08 1.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.32 0.32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.40 1.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s

0.20 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 361 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 22 / 48
Total 0.25 0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.50 12.1 16.6 0.02 0.01 — 20.0 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.67 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.50 12.1 16.6 0.02 0.01 — 20.0 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.67 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — —Item —III.B Page — 362 — of 388— — SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 23 / 48
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 2.01 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.31 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.28 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.86 2.28 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.79

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.50 12.1 16.6 0.02 0.01 — 20.0 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.67 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.50 12.1 16.6 0.02 0.01 — 20.0 Item III.B Page 363 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 24 / 48
Recreati — — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.67 2.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.19 13.8 19.0 0.02 0.01 — 22.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 0.74 2.01 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.31 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.12 0.28 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.48 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.86 2.28 3.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.79

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Item III.B Page 364 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 25 / 48
Recreati — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item III.B Page 365 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 26 / 48
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.5 0.00 24.5 2.45 0.00 — 85.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2 Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Item III.B Page 366 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 27 / 48
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.05 0.00 4.05 0.41 0.00 — 14.2

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0
Item III.B Page 367 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 28 / 48
Recreati — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 onal
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 78.5 78.5
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0
Recreati
onal
Swimmi
ng
Pool
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
Item III.B Page 368 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 29 / 48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 13.0

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — —Item —III.B Page — 369 — of 388— — SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 30 / 48
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 370 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 31 / 48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 371 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 32 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Item III.B Page 372 of 388 SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 33 / 48
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 373 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 34 / 48
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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) Item III.B Page 374 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 35 / 48
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item III.B Page 375 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 36 / 48
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 166 166 166 60,590 671 671 671 244,834
Recreational
Swimming Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Item III.B Page 376 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 37 / 48

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 166 166 166 60,590 671 671 671 244,834
Recreational
Swimming Pool

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-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

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

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)
0 0.00 75,293 25,098 1,440

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
Item III.B Page 377 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 38 / 48
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) Hotel 701,978 346 0.0330 0.0040 1,468,413
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 701,978 346 0.0330 0.0040 1,468,413
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 346 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 346 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) Hotel 2,105,442 358,302
Recreational Swimming Pool 325,287 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Item III.B Page 378 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 39 / 48
Hotel 2,105,442 358,302
Recreational Swimming Pool 325,287 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 45.4 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 45.4 —
Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 —
Other Non-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 Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Item III.B Page 379 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 40 / 48
Recreational
Swimming Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational
Swimming Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Recreational
Swimming Pool
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Recreational
Swimming Pool
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

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

5.16. Stationary Sources
Item III.B Page 380 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 41 / 48

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
Item III.B Page 381 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 42 / 48

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)

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 6.51 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 7.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 21.1 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
Item III.B Page 382 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 43 / 48
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 N/A N/A N/A 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 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A 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.

Item III.B Page 383 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 44 / 48
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 —
AQ-Ozone 22.2
AQ-PM 16.8
AQ-DPM 78.8
Drinking Water 17.3
Lead Risk Housing 68.6
Pesticides 54.6
Toxic Releases 10.1
Traffic 53.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 90.0
Groundwater 99.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.7
Impaired Water Bodies 83.0
Solid Waste 96.4
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 50.5
Cardio-vascular 19.2
Low Birth Weights 62.9
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Item III.B Page 384 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 45 / 48
Education 73.4
Housing 69.9
Linguistic 66.6
Poverty 67.6
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.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 21.36532786
Employed 90.05517772
Median HI 48.20993199
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 40.3567304
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 23.02065957
Transportation —
Auto Access 45.25856538
Active commuting 93.31451302
Social —
2-parent households 33.45309893
Voting 68.15090466
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 14.42320031
Park access 81.35506224
Retail density 89.69588092
Supermarket access 86.74451431
Item III.B Page 385 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 46 / 48
Tree canopy 44.74528423
Housing —
Homeownership 17.01527011
Housing habitability 9.90632619
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 3.644296163 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 79.07096112
Uncrowded housing 5.081483383
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 2.65622995
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 49.5
High Blood Pressure 58.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 66.1
Asthma 30.0
Coronary Heart Disease 31.2
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 27.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 31.7
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 77.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 95.8
Mental Health Not Good 25.4
Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4
Obesity 21.9
Pedestrian Injuries 71.4
Physical Health Not Good 24.5
Stroke 34.3
Health Risk Behaviors —
Item III.B Page 386 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 47 / 48
Binge Drinking 43.3
Current Smoker 26.7
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 31.1
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.1
SLR Inundation Area 46.6
Children 78.7
Elderly 74.7
English Speaking 21.4
Foreign-born 82.3
Outdoor Workers 11.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 53.4
Traffic Density 62.0
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 79.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 66.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 71.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No Item III.B Page 387 of 388
SB Hilton Hotel GHG Emissions Project Operations Detailed Report, 3/6/2025 48 / 48
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
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 AB Design Studio, 2024
Construction: Construction Phases AB Design Studio, 2024 Construction: Demolition AB Design Studio, 2024
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the City's Traffic Model and peak hour PM rate of 0.33 trips per 1,000 SF. Peak hour assumed to be 10% of daily trips.

Operations: Solid Waste Pool is not open to the public and would not generate additional solid waste Item III.B Page 388 of 388
City of Santa Barbara

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
MAY 15, 2025
1:00 P.M.

City Hall, Council Chambers
735 Anacapa Street
SantaBarbaraCA.gov
COMMISSION MEMBERS:

Devon Wardlow, Chair
Lucille Boss, Vice Chair
Brian Barnwell
John M. Baucke
Donald DeLuccio
Benjamin Peterson
Lesley Wiscomb
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON:

Mike Jordan
STAFF:

Tava Ostrenger, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Arciniega, Senior Planner
Jasper Carman, Commission Secretary
B. 633 E. CABRILLO BLVD. / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT ACTUAL TIME: 1:32 P.M.

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 017-680-013
Zoning Designation: HRC-1 / SP-1 / S-D-3 (Hotel and Related Commerce/Specific Plan -1/Coastal Overlay)
Application Number: PLN2022-00443 Filing Date: November 14, 2022 Applicant: Trish Allen / SEPPS, Inc.

Owner: Carl A. Mayfield, V.P. / Fess Parker Red Lion Hotel The Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort is located on a 23.56-acre lot at 633 E.

Cabrillo Blvd. and is comprised of 329,780 square feet of floor area. The resort includes 360 guest rooms, a lobby, meeting/banquet space, restaurants, bars, spa, salon, retail shop, back of house areas (e.g., offices, storage rooms), swimming pool, tennis courts, and 931 parking spaces.

The proposed project consists of a 50,195-square-foot addition to Building B (Bougainvillea), as well as the removal of 2 guest rooms and the reconfiguration of 6 guest rooms in Building B. The project includes the demolition of Building A (Azalea), a 4,027-square-foot building with 8 guest rooms, and the demolition of the tennis courts and 240-square-foot tennis shop. The total number of guest rooms would increase from 360 to 433 guest rooms (a net increase of 73 guest rooms). The total square footage of the hotel would increase from 329,780 square feet to 375,708 square feet (a net increase of 45,928 square feet). The total number of vehicle parking spaces onsite would be reduced from 931 spaces to 880 spaces. Bicycle parking spaces would increase from 58 to 100.

The discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission at this hearing are:

ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2025
A. A Parking Modification to allow less than the required number of vehicle and bicycle parking spaces (SBMC §28.90.100 and §28.92.110);
B. A Development Plan to allow the construction of 2,810 square feet of net new nonresidential floor area allocated from the minor and small addition categories (SBMC Chapter 28.85);
C. A Development Plan for a Transfer of Existing Development Rights Permit to transfer 43,118 square feet from the Waterfront Hotel (433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) to the project site (SBMC §28.95);
D. A Coastal Development Permit to allow the proposed development in the Appealable and Non-Appealable Jurisdiction of the City’s Coastal Zone (SBMC §28.44.060); and E. Consideration of an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report.

Project Design Approval and Final Design Approval by the Historic Landmarks Commission will also be required for the project at a later date, if the Planning Commission approves the project (SBMC Chapter 30.220).

Kathleen Kennedy, Project Planner, gave the Staff presentation. Teresa Sjoting, Assistant Transportation Planner, and Julia Pujo, Environmental Analyst, were available to answer questions.

Keith Butler, Commissioner of the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), gave an overview of the HLC’s comments on the project from previous HLC hearings and was available to answer questions.

Trish Allen, SEPPS Inc.; Clay Aurell, AB Design Studio; and Rob Maday, Bosky Landscape Architecture, gave the Applicant presentation, and were joined by members of Fess Parker Enterprises, Park Hotels and Resorts, Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort, and affiliated technical team members.

Public comment opened at 2:12 p.m., and the following individuals spoke:

1. Charles Carnow

2. Nicole Rogers
Written correspondence from Paulina Conn was acknowledged.

Public comment closed at 2:16 p.m.
* THE COMMISSION RECESSED FROM 2:17 TO 2:24 P.M. *
MOTION: Wiscomb / Boss Assigned Resolution No. 004-25
Approve the project, making the findings for the Parking Modification, Development Plan, Development Plan for the Transfer of Existing Development Rights Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Environmental Impact Report Addendum as outlined in the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Staff Report, with the following revisions to the Conditions of Approval:

Planning Commission Minutes May 15, 2025

1. Relocated trees shall be assessed within one (1) year by a certified arborist for signs of extreme stress or impending death, and if present, they shall be replaced immediately.

2. As long as there is a reduction in the required 209 bicycle spaces, as allowed by the Parking Modification approval, the hotel shall continue to provide bicycle rentals to guests through a third-party vendor. The rental bicycles shall not use the bicycle spaces required for guests and employees.

The motion carried by the following vote:

Ayes: 6 Noes: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (Barnwell)
The ten calendar day appeal period was announced.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 004-25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT

PARKING MODIFICATION, DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TRANSFER OF EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PERMIT, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MAY 15, 2025
The Hilton Santa Barbara Beachfront Resort is located on a 23.56-acre lot at 633 E. Cabrillo Blvd. and is comprised of 329,780 square feet of floor area. The resort includes 360 guest rooms, a lobby, meeting/banquet space, restaurants, bars, spa, salon, retail shop, back of house areas (e.g., offices, storage rooms), swimming pool, tennis courts, and 931 parking spaces.

The proposed project consists of a 50,195-square-foot addition to Building B (Bougainvillea), as well as the removal of 2 guest rooms and the reconfiguration of 6 guest rooms in Building B. The project includes the demolition of Building A (Azalea), a 4,027-square-foot building with 8 guest rooms, and the demolition of the tennis courts and 240-square-foot tennis shop. The total number of guest rooms would increase from 360 to 433 guest rooms (a net increase of 73 guest rooms). The total square footage of the hotel would increase from 329,780 square feet to 375,708 square feet (a net increase of 45,928 square feet).

The proposed project also includes lanai pools, swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area with bar, new landscaping, storm water improvements, soil and groundwater remediation, and public improvements. A total of 22 trees would be removed, 33 trees would be relocated, and 47 trees would be protected. Fifty new trees are proposed.

The total number of vehicle parking spaces onsite would be reduced from 931 spaces to 880 spaces. The adjacent Waterfront Hotel (not yet constructed at 433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) would be allocated 100 of the spaces through an existing parking easement agreement, resulting in a total of 780 parking spaces for the Hilton hotel project. Valet parking during peak events would provide an additional 71 parking spaces. Bicycle parking spaces would increase from 58 to 100.

Development would occur in the westerly portion of the project site, towards S. Calle Cesar Chavez, except for installation of stormwater improvements and repaving of some parking areas, which would occur in the northern portion of the site.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held the required public hearing on the above application, and the Applicant was present.

WHEREAS, two people appeared to speak and the following exhibits were presented for the record:

1. Staff Report with Attachments, May 8, 2025

2. Project Plans

3. Correspondence received:
a. Paulina Conn
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission:

ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 2
I. Approved the subject application, making the following findings and determinations:

A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA GUIDELINES §15162 AND §15164) The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum dated May 15, 2025 together with the previously certified Park Plaza Environmental Impact Report (Earth Metrics, Inc., August 31, 1979), and Waterfront Park, Hotel and Youth Hostel Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 92091038) (Interface, June 18, 1993), Red Lion Resort Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #95121040) (Perspective Planning, July 1996); and Doubletree Resort Final Supplemental EIR (SCH #2001081069) (Rincon, March 2003) and finds that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Addendum, together with the previously certified Environmental Impact Reports, is adequate for this project. On the basis of the whole record, including the Addendum, the previously certified CEQA documents, and any public comments received, the Planning Commission finds that the project changes described in the Addendum will neither create any new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects on the environment, nor present new information of substantial importance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162.

B. PARKING MODIFICATION (SBMC §28.92.110)

1. The Parking Modification will not be inconsistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 28), which are to serve the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources, and to encourage, guide and provide a definite plan for the future growth and development of the City. The hotel will provide alternative transportation incentives with the updated visitor information program and updated transportation demand management program, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025 and documented in the conditions of approval.

2. The Parking Modification will not cause an increase in the demand for parking space or loading space in the immediate area because the project is expected to meet the parking demand onsite based on the Parking Study (ATE, 2/05/2024), as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

C. DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SBMC CHAPTER 28.85)

1. The proposed development complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including the 1994 Amended Park Plaza Specific Plan, and as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

2. The proposed development is consistent with the principles of sound community planning because the hotel is a permitted use described in the Park Plaza Specific Plan and meets all of the other required criteria in the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Coastal Land Use Plan, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

3. The proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact upon the community’s aesthetics or character in that the size, bulk or scale of the development will be compatible with the neighborhood based on the preliminary Project Compatibility Analysis provided by the Historic Landmarks Commission as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025, and the proposed project would be consistent with development regulations within the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 3
Specific Plan related to aesthetics and community character, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

4. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the City of Santa Barbara Traffic Management Strategy (as approved by City Resolution No. 13-010 dated March 12, 2013, and amended per Resolution No. 20-042 dated June 23, 2020) as expressed in the allocation allowances specified in SBMC §28.85.050, Traffic Management Strategy, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

D. TRANSFER OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (SBMC §28.95.060)

1. The proposed development plans for both the sending site (Waterfront Hotel) and the receiving site (Hilton hotel) are consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and all applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code; and

2. The proposed developments will not be detrimental to the site(s), neighborhood or surrounding areas because the Waterfront Hotel, an approved project, has been determined to be appropriate for the neighborhood, and the Historic Landmarks Commission stated that the Hilton hotel project is compatible with the neighborhood based on the preliminary Project Compatibility Analysis, as described in Section VIII of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

3. The floor area of proposed nonresidential development on the receiving site (Hilton hotel) does not exceed the sum of the amount of Existing Development Rights transferred when added to the amount of Existing Development Rights on the receiving site and does not exceed the maximum development allowed by the applicable zoning of the receiving site, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

4. Each of the proposed nonresidential developments on the respective sending site (Waterfront Hotel) and receiving site (Hilton hotel) will meet all standards for review as set forth in Section

28.85.040 (Development Plan Findings) and all provisions of Chapter 28.95 because the development plan findings were made for the Waterfront Hotel and can be made for the Hilton hotel; and the specific conditions for a transfer approval included in the 2016 Development Agreement regarding square footage and analysis of the proposed Hilton hotel project have been met, as described in Section VI of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

5. Development remaining, or to be built, on a sending site (Waterfront Hotel) is appropriate in size, scale, use, and configuration for the neighborhood and is beneficial to the community because the project has received all applicable land use and design review approvals.

E. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SBMC §28.44.150)

1. The project is consistent with the policies of the California Coastal Act related to public access; visitor serving and recreational facilities; scenic resources and visual quality; storm water management; biological resources (bird nesting); and cultural resources (archaeology), as described in Section VI.B of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

2. The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the City’s Local Coastal Plan, all applicable implementing guidelines, and all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code related to public access; visitor serving and recreational facilities (including Coastal Act section 30213 and LUP Policy 3.2-12, Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities); scenic resources and visual quality; coastal hazards and safety; storm water management; biological resources (bird nesting); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 4
cultural resources (archaeology), and meets the required parking demand, and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as described in Section VI.B of the Staff Report dated May 8, 2025.

II. Said approval is subject to the following conditions:

A. Order of Development. In order to accomplish the proposed development, the following steps shall occur in the order identified:

1. Obtain all required design review approvals.

2. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) to demolish any structures / improvements and/or perform rough grading. Comply with condition E “Construction Implementation Requirements.”

3. Record any required documents (see Recorded Conditions Agreement section).

4. Permits.
a. Submit an application for and obtain a Building Permit (BLD) for construction of approved development and complete said development.
b. Submit an application for and obtain a Public Works Permit (PBW) for all required public improvements and complete said improvements.

Details on implementation of these steps are provided throughout the conditions of approval.

B. Recorded Conditions Agreement. The Owner shall execute a written instrument, which shall be prepared by Planning staff, reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, and shall include the following:

1. Approved Development. The development of the Real Property approved by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2025 consists of an addition to Building B (Bougainvillea) of approximately 50,195 square feet, resulting in a net increase of 73 guest rooms, for a total of 433 guest rooms; demolition of Building A (Azalea), a 4,027-square-foot building with 8 guest rooms; demolition of tennis courts and 240-square-foot tennis shop; construction of lanai pools, swimming pool, spa, outdoor fire pit lounge area with bar; new landscaping; storm water improvements; soil and groundwater remediation; and public improvements, as described in the Applicant Letter dated April 30, 2025, and as shown on the plans signed by the chairperson of the Planning Commission on said date and on file at the City of Santa Barbara.

2. Uninterrupted Water Flow. The Owner shall allow for the continuation of any historic flow of water onto the Real Property including, but not limited to, swales, natural watercourses, conduits and any access road, as appropriate.

3. Recreational Vehicle Storage Prohibition. No recreational vehicles, boats, or trailers shall be stored on the Real Property.

4. Landscape Plan Compliance. The Owner shall comply with the Landscape Plan approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). Such plan shall not be modified unless prior written approval is obtained from the HLC. The landscaping on the Real Property shall be provided and maintained in accordance with said landscape plan, including any tree protection measures. If said landscaping is removed for any reason without approval by the HLC, the owner is responsible for its immediate replacement.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 5

5. Storm Water Pollution Control and Drainage Systems Maintenance. Owner shall maintain the drainage system and storm water pollution control devices in a functioning state and in accordance with the Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual and Operations and Maintenance Procedure Plan approved by the Creeks Division. Should any of the project’s surface or subsurface drainage structures or storm water pollution control methods fail to capture, infiltrate, and/or treat water, or result in increased erosion, the Owner shall be responsible for any necessary repairs to the system and restoration of the eroded area. Should repairs or restoration become necessary, prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration work, the Owner shall submit a repair and restoration plan to the Community Development Director to determine if an amendment or a new Building Permit, or Coastal Development Permit, is required to authorize such work. The Owner is responsible for the adequacy of any project-related drainage facilities and for the continued maintenance thereof in a manner that will preclude any hazard to life, health, or damage to the Real Property or any adjoining property.

6. Tsunami and Seiche Liability Limitation. The Owner acknowledges that the project site may be subject to hazards from tsunamis and/or seiches. The Owner assumes the risks of injury and damage from such hazards in connection with the permitted development. The Owner waives any claim of damage or liability against the City for injury or damage from such hazards. In the event of a tsunami and/or seiche hazard event that damages the development, the Owner shall remove all recoverable debris associated with the development from the beach and the ocean and lawfully dispose of the material at an approved disposal site. Such removal shall require authorization through an emergency and/or regular Coastal Development Permit process.

C. Design Review. The project, including public improvements, is subject to the review and approval of the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC). The HLC shall not grant project design approval until the following Planning Commission land use conditions have been satisfied.

1. Screened Backflow Device. The backflow devices for fire sprinklers, pools, spas and/or irrigation systems shall be provided in a location screened from public view or included in the exterior wall of the building, as approved by the HLC.

2. Location of Dry Utilities. Dry utilities (e.g. above-ground cabinets) shall be placed on private property unless deemed infeasible for engineering reasons. If dry utilities must be placed in the public right-of-way, they shall be painted “Malaga Green,” and if feasible, they shall be screened as approved by HLC.

D. Requirements Prior to Permit Issuance. The Owner shall submit the following, or evidence of completion of the following, for review and approval by the Department listed below prior to the issuance of any permit for the project. Some of these conditions may be waived for demolition or rough grading permits, at the discretion of the department listed. Please note that these conditions are in addition to the standard submittal requirements for each department.

1. Public Works Department.
a. Approved Public Improvement Plans. Public Improvement Plans as identified in condition D.1.c “S. Calle Cesar Chavez Public Improvements” shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Upon acceptance of completed public improvement plans, a Building permit may be issued if the Owner has bonded for public improvements and executed the Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements (Not a Subdivision).

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 6
b. Water Rights Assignment Agreement. The Owner shall assign to the City of Santa Barbara the exclusive right to extract ground water from under the Real Property in an Agreement Assigning Water Extraction Rights. Engineering Division Staff prepares said agreement for the Owner’s signature.
c. S. Calle Cesar Chavez Public Improvements. The Owner shall submit C-1 public improvement plans for construction of improvements along the property frontage on S. Calle Cesar Chavez. Plans shall be submitted separately from plans submitted for a Building Permit and shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of California. As determined by the Public Works Department, the improvements shall include new and/or remove and replace to City standards, the following: approximately 265 linear feet of 6 foot wide sidewalk/ 90 linear feet of 8 foot wide and approximately 265’ of 4 foot wide landscape parkway, driveway apron modified to meet Title 24 requirements with a maximum width of 36 feet, 275 linear feet of curb and gutter, 200 feet of curb only in the median, one Mid-block and one Standard Diagonal access ramp, two Type 1 City Standard Detail Drop Inlets, approximately 400 linear feet of 15” Storm Drain Pipe, approximately 85 linear feet StormTech Chambers, public drainage improvements with supporting drainage calculations and/or hydrology report for installation of drainage pipe, Storm Drain Chambers, or connection to existing City storm drain, preserve and/or reset survey monuments, protect and relocate existing contractor stamps to parkway, supply and install directional/regulatory traffic control signs per the CA MUTCD during construction, storm drain stenciling. Any work in the public right-of-way requires a Public Works Permit.
• The S. Calle Cesar Chavez driveway is required to be converted to a standard commercial style driveway, or the radii shall be reduced to 12’-0”. • Root pruning and root barriers shall be performed and installed with the new sidewalk. • Median modifications are required to maintain a minimum 20-foot curb to curb width in the northbound direction between E. Cabrillo Blvd and the median opening for the driveway. Restriping of the roadway is required to provide a minimum 2-foot shoulder next to the median, a 12-foot travel lane, and a 6-foot bicycle lane. An opening in the median shall be provided that aligns with the new pedestrian access ramp for crossing S. Calle Cesar Chavez. If the Waterfront Hotel (433 E. Cabrillo Blvd.) project moves forward first, these changes may not be needed or may be altered.
d. Haul Routes Require Separate Permit. Apply for a Public Works permit to establish the haul route(s) for all construction-related trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more entering or exiting the site.
e. Construction-Related Truck Trips. Construction-related truck trips for trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of three tons or more shall not be scheduled during peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) in order to help reduce truck traffic on adjacent streets and roadways.
f. Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements. The Owner shall submit an executed Agreement to Construct and Install Improvements, prepared by the Engineering Division, an Engineer’s Estimate, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer, and securities for construction of improvements prior to execution of the Agreement.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 7
g. Encroachment Permits. Any encroachment or other permits from the City or other jurisdictions (State, Flood Control, County, etc.) for the construction of improvements (including any required appurtenances) within their rights of way or easements shall be obtained by the Owner.
h. Valet Parking Agreement. A recorded valet agreement is required before issuance of a building permit. To be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and City Attorney. i. Valet Operations.
(1) A valet operations plan is required to manage parking operations during peak events with 900-1,000 guests as described in the Parking Study (ATE, February 5, 2024). (2) Valet parking services must ensure a parking attendant will be on duty at all times that the facility is in use and provide sufficient staff and facilities to ensure that automobiles are moved promptly. If, at any time, the valet operation is unable to satisfy the parking demand, and queuing or double parking occurs, the operation shall be temporarily closed until the demand can be properly handled.
(3) Valet parking, vehicle storage, pickup, drop-off, or vehicle movements shall not use any street, alley, or City owned parking facilities, or interfere with any right-of-way without approval of the Public Works Director. Valet shall not remove or interfere with automobile or bicycle parking required for any use.
j. No Loading Activities on E. Cabrillo Blvd. No loading activities shall occur on E Cabrillo Blvd. All loading activities shall take place onsite.
k. Transportation Demand Management Improvements. The alternative mode incentives identified in condition G.3 “Transportation Demand Management” that require physical improvements shall be shown on the project plans.
l. Visitor Information Program. Submit a copy of the updated Visitor Information Program required by condition G.4 “Visitor Information Program” for approval by the Public Works Director.

2. Community Development Department.
a. Recordation of Agreements. The Owner shall provide evidence of recordation of the written instrument that includes all of the Recorded Conditions identified in condition B “Recorded Conditions Agreement” to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits.
b. Drainage and Water Quality. The project is required to comply with Tier 4 of the Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual, pursuant to Santa Barbara Municipal Code Chapter 22.87 (treatment, rate and volume). The Owner shall submit a hydrology report prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed architect demonstrating that the new development will comply with the City’s Storm Water BMP Guidance Manual. Project plans for grading, drainage, stormwater facilities and treatment methods, and project development, shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Division and Public Works Department.

Sufficient engineered design and adequate measures shall be employed to ensure that no unpermitted construction-related or long-term effects from increased runoff, erosion and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 8
sedimentation, urban water pollutants (including, but not limited to trash, hydrocarbons, fertilizers, bacteria, etc.), or groundwater pollutants would result from the project. c. Energy Conservation Plan. An updated Energy Conservation Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan. d. Water Conservation. Provide documentation that the project will require less than 2.4 acre feet per year per acre (approximately 56.5 acre feet per year) (AFY) of potable water, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan.
e. Remediation Action Plan. Owner shall submit the Final Remediation Action Plan and Soil Management Plan approved by Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services. All remedial action shall be completed by the Owner in compliance with all applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, and other provisions of law and in a manner consistent with current regulatory guidelines and industry standards. County Environmental Health Services shall oversee all related work and remedial action. The approved Final Remediation Action Plan and Soil Management Plan shall be implemented as part of the construction of the project. f. Tree Protection Measures. The tree protection measures in the Arborist Report (Bill Mellett Design, October 30, 2023) shall be shown on the plans. The following note shall also be shown on the plans: Relocated trees shall be assessed within one (1) year by a certified arborist for signs of extreme stress or impending death, and if present, be replaced immediately. g. Archaeological Monitoring Contract. Submit a contract with an archaeologist from the most current City Qualified Archaeologists List to oversee monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, including, but not limited to, grading, excavation, trenching vegetation or paving removal and ground clearance. The contract shall be subject to the review and approval of the Environmental Analyst. The archaeologist’s monitoring contract shall include the provisions identified in condition D.2.h “Requirement for Archaeological Resources” below.
h. Requirement for Archaeological Resources. The following information shall be printed on the grading plans:

If archaeological resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted or redirected immediately and the Environmental Analyst shall be notified. The archaeologist shall assess the nature, extent, and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for archaeological resource treatment, which may include, but are not limited to, redirection of grading and/or excavation activities, consultation and/or monitoring with a local Barbareño Chumash representative.

If a discovery consists of possible human remains, the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission. A local Barbareño Chumash representative shall be retained to monitor all further subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.

If the discovery consists of possible prehistoric or Native American artifacts or materials, a local Barbareño Chumash representative shall be retained to monitor all further PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 9
subsurface disturbance in the area of the find. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.
i. Native American Monitoring. Contract with a local Chumash tribal representative for monitoring during all ground disturbing activities associated with the project including but not limited to, vegetation or paving removal, grading, excavation, and trenching. The contract shall be subject to the review and approval of the Environmental Analyst. The local Chumash tribal representative and archaeologist's monitoring contract shall include the following provisions:

If unknown tribal cultural resources are encountered or suspected, work shall be halted or redirected immediately and the City Environmental Analyst shall be notified.

The local Chumash tribal representative monitor shall assess the nature, extent and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for tribal cultural resource and archaeological resource treatment. This may require additional consultation with other Chumash tribal representatives. Resulting management recommendations may include, but are not limited to, archaeological investigations to determine the spatial extent and characteristics of the resources, possible alternative construction methods to avoid the resource, and continued monitoring by the local Chumash tribal representative and archaeologist.

If a discovery consists of possible human remains, the Santa Barbara County Coroner shall be contacted immediately pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission to identify the Most Likely Descendant, who shall work with the project applicant to determine the appropriate disposition of the remains in a location that ensures their preservation in perpetuity. Work in the area may only proceed after the Environmental Analyst grants authorization.
j. Arborist’s Monitoring. Submit to the Planning Division an executed contract with a qualified arborist for monitoring of all work during construction. The contract shall include a schedule for the arborist's presence during grading and construction activities, and is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
k. Transfer of Existing Development Rights. The documents transferring the development rights (43,118 square feet) from the Waterfront Hotel at 433 E. Cabrillo Blvd. to the project site shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to execution. Once the documents affecting the transfer of rights has been executed and recorded, evidence of the recording shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.
l. Air Quality and Dust Control. The Owner shall contact the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to finalize the regulatory requirements, and best practices related to dust control and emission reduction, that were suggested in the APCD letter dated November 16, 2023. All requirements shall be reproduced on the plans. m. Contractor and Subcontractor Notification. The Owner shall notify in writing all contractors and subcontractors of the site rules, restrictions, and Conditions of Approval.

Submit a draft copy of the notice to the Planning Division for review and approval.

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 004–25
633 EAST CABRILLO BOULEVARD / HILTON SANTA BARBARA BEACHFRONT RESORT MAY 15, 2025
PAGE 10
n. Letter of Commitment for Neighborhood Notification Prior to Construction. The Owner shall submit to the Planning Division a letter of commitment to provide the written notice specified in condition E.1 “Neighborhood Notification Prior to Construction” below. The language of the notice and the mailing list shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to being distributed. An affidavit signed by the person who compiled the mailing list shall be submitted to the Planning Division.
o. Letter of Commitment for Pre-Construction Conference. The Owner shall submit to the Planning Division a letter of commitment to hold the Pre-Construction Conference identified in condition E.2 “Pre-Construction Conference” prior to disturbing any part of the project site for any reason.
p. Design Review Requirements. Plans shall show all design, landscape and tree protection elements, as approved by the appropriate design review board and as outlined in Section C “Design Review,” and all elements/specifications shall be implemented on-site. q. Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan. Provide an updated Disaster Evacuation and Safety Plan subject to approval by the Fire Department and Planning Division, as required by the Park Plaza Specific Plan.
r. Conditions on Plans/Signatures. The final Resolution shall be provided on a full-size drawing sheet as part of the drawing sets. The following statement shall be signed prior to issuance of any permits: