Sebastopol City Council
April 2, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-9
The amount of wastewater generated by the project was estimated based on the estimated water demand calculated in Impact UTIL-2 and the principle that water demand is 120 percent of wastewater generation (due to evaporation and system losses, meaning that not all water that is used ends up going to the wastewater treatment plan). The project would generate approximately 18,100 gallons per day of wastewater.1 This would account for approximately 2 percent of Sebastopol’s total ADDWF entitlement capacity of 0.393 mgd (Sebastopol 2023a). No additional expansion of wastewater services would be required, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
As described within Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, which could in turn increase stormwater runoff that enters Sebastopol’s storm drain system. The proposed project includes onsite drainage improvements with bioretention facilities (vegetated buffers and bioswale) and a storm drain network. The inlet and overflow structures of an existing detention pond for the adjacent office park would be modified to detain and control combined drainage from the office park and proposed project. The project would comply with relevant water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, including SMC Chapter 13.20, Stormwater Ordinance which includes the NPDES Construction General Permit, and SMC Chapter 15.78 which includes the RWQCB stormwater Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual) for the City and Sonoma County. The proposed project would meet these requirements through the design of the onsite stormwater drainage improvements. Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local policies would ensure that stormwater is adequately managed on site and no off-site stormwater facilities are required.

No stormwater facilities beyond those identified in Section 2, Project Description, would be required, and proposed stormwater facilities are analyzed throughout this EIR. This impact would be less than significant.

Electricity and Natural Gas
PG&E would provide electricity to the proposed project. No natural gas is proposed as part of the project. Existing power lines are available along Gravenstein Highway North that may be utilized to provide electricity to the project site. Additionally, homeowners would have the option to opt into the Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) program, which provides residents and businesses in Sonoma and Mendocino counties with clean energy from more renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar. While the project would need to connect to existing service lines, no additional expansion of electricity or gas services would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunication
AT&T and/or Xfinity would provide telecommunication service to the project. Infrastructure capable of supporting telecommunications is currently present in the project site area. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

As described above, the project would not require construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications 1 Water demand is approximately 8 million gallons per year. If water demand is 120 percent on wastewater demand, 8 million gallons per year divided by 1.2 (120 percent) would equal approximately 6.6 million gallons of wastewater per year. 3.9 million gallons of wastewater per year divided by 365 days would be approximately 18,100 gallons of wastewater per day.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-10
facilities would be adequate in serving development facilitated by the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 THERE ARE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT DURING NORMAL, DRY, AND MULTI-DRY YEAR CONDITIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The City of Sebastopol would provide water to the project site. There is no Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the service area. The project site, located in Sebastopol, is not within the service territory of a water supply provider with 3,000 or more services connections such that a UWMP would be required.

The project would increase water demand at the project site. Construction and operation of the proposed project would require the use of potable and non-potable water. As discussed in Section

4.11, Population and Housing, the full buildout of the project could result in approximately 96 new residences and 204 new residents within Sebastopol. The proposed project would need to connect to existing service lines for water service. This increase in population would result in a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies.

As discussed above in Setting, the average total per capita water production between 2006 and 2015 was 129 gallons per person per day. Utilizing the water usage rate of 129 gallons per capita per day, the total annual water demand of the proposed project would be approximately 9.6 mg2 , or

0.77 percent of the 1,237 mg maximum production for the city. The projected water supply currently available for production by the City of Sebastopol exceeds the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. While the project would increase water demand within the city, the projected water demand associated with the proposed project would not exceed the City’s available water production capabilities.

Furthermore, the City adopted a Water Supply Contingency Plan in June 2023, which seeks to conserve the available water supply and protect the integrity of public water system supply facilities, with particular regard for domestic water use, sanitation, and fire protection, to protect and preserve public health, welfare, and safety and minimize the adverse impacts of water supply shortage or other water supply emergency conditions (City of Sebastopol 2023b).

The proposed project also includes water-conserving features. As described in Section 2, Project Description, future residences would include water-efficient appliances and water-efficient landscaping. In addition, CalGreen has a set of mandatory residential measures that require the use of water conserving plumbing fixtures, sets standards of compliance for outdoor potable water use, and establishes requirements for recycled water supply systems to increase water efficiency. 2 9.6 mg = 204 residents * 129 mg * 365
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-11
Although the project would increase water demand, service demand would be within the available capacities of the City of Sebastopol. Compliance with existing regulations and inclusion of the proposed water-conserving project features would also help ensure that an adequate supply of water is provided to the proposed project during normal, dry, and multi-dry year conditions.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 4: Would the project 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?
Threshold 5: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTIL-3 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR

LOCAL STANDARDS, OR IN EXCESS OF THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE

ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS, AND WOULD COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in the addition of up to 80 single-family residential units and up to 16 ADUs, totaling 96 residential units. The Central Disposal Site has a maximum capacity of 32,650,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity of 9,181,519 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2023a). Based on a solid waste generation rate of 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per day, the proposed project would generate an estimated 1,175 pounds per day3 or about 428,540 pounds per year (or 214 tons per year) (CalRecycle 2023b). According to CalRecycle, the Central Disposal Site has a maximum daily throughput of approximately 2,500 tons per day and anticipated closure date of June 1, 2043 (CalRecycle 2023a). The proposed project would yield an annual solid waste generation of approximately 1,175 pounds per day, which would account for less than one percent of the daily throughput of the Central Disposal Site. The projected 1,175 pounds per day would equated to approximately 0.70 cubic yards per day4 of solid waste or 255 cubic yards per year5
, which would account for less than one percent of the Central Disposal Site’s remaining capacity. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local solid waste infrastructure.

Furthermore, AB 939 requires the diversion of 50 percent of solid waste from landfills. SB 1383 also requires a 75 percent reduction in statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025, which would further reduce the amount of solid waste disposed at Central Disposal Site. In addition, the project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, impacts from the generation of solid waste and compliance with solid waste management and reduction regulations are less than significant. 3 1,175 pounds per day = 96 residential units * 12.23 pounds per dwelling unit per day 4 0.70 cubic yards per day = 1,175 pounds per day * 0.000593299 cubic yards 5 255 cubic yards per year = 0.70 cubic yards per day * 365 days per year Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.15-12
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative analysis of utilities includes each of the respective utility district boundaries. This geographic scope is appropriate because public utilities involve widespread distribution of centralized resource supplies, such as electricity and potable water.

Cumulative projects would increase demand for water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services, and may require facilities improvements as a result.

Therefore, this cumulative impact is potentially significant. However, similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects would incorporate required project-specific design features and BMPs, would comply with all applicable regulations related to utilities, and would incorporate projectspecific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and BMP requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts may be reduced to a less than significant level with these requirements.

As discussed under Impacts UTIL-1 and UTIL-2, the proposed project would have access to adequate water, wastewater, stormwater, electricity and natural gas facilities to meet project demands, and expansion of such facilities would not be required.

Similar to the proposed project, cumulative projects would rely on the City for their water supply.

Water is expected to be available for normal, dry, and multi-dry year conditions. Therefore, this cumulative impact is less than significant.

The project would result in a less than significant impact on wastewater infrastructure with compliance with the existing regulations and the proposed water-conserving features. Cumulative projects would be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If cumulative projects would be reliant on an available wastewater treatment plant, those projects would be analyzed for their impacts to that system. Therefore, this cumulative impact is potentially significant. However, the proposed project would result in approximately 2 percent of the City’s total ADDWF entitlement capacity and would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts.

Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Central Disposal Site has a maximum capacity of 32,650,000 cubic yards and has a remaining capacity of 9,181,519 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2023a). Cumulative projects would be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Due to the significant amount of remaining capacity of the Central Disposal Site, cumulative impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant. As described under Impact UTIL-3, the project would comply with applicable solid waste regulations, and would not result in an exceedance of the landfill’s remaining capacity.

Therefore, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-1

4.16 Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant

4.16.1 Agriculture and Forestry
a. Checklist Questions
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 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; Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; 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)); Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. b. Answers to Checklist Questions and Conclusions
1-5) The project site is designated as Office/Light Industrial (OLI) in the 2016 City of Sebastopol General Plan. The project site is in an area classified as “New Urban or Built Up” land (California Department of Conservation, 2016a). The City’s General Plan land use map and zoning maps do not identify any agriculture or forestry resources in the City of Sebastopol. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency does not identify the project site as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland or Statewide Importance and there are no lands within or adjacent to the city that are forest land as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), or timber land as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 (California Department of Conservation, 2018).

The project site is not located on or adjacent to agricultural land or forest land, and so the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. For the same reasons, the project would have no impact with respect to non-agricultural use; conflict with agricultural zoning or the Williamson Act contract; result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use; or conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.16-2

4.16.2 Energy
a. Checklist Questions
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 1-2) The project would construct 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Electricity to the project site would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),and the project would utilize renewable electricity through the use of solar panels. Additionally, homeowners would have the option to opt into the Sonoma Clean Power (SCP) program, which provides residents and businesses in Sonoma and Mendocino counties with clean energy from more renewable resources, such as geothermal, wind, and solar. All garages will be wired for EV charging and solar battery backup, and the project would include energy star appliances and Nest thermostats. No natural gas is proposed as part of the project.

The project would result in increased energy consumption when compared to existing conditions, through electricity to power facilities, and petroleum use by motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. However, new development would comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen standards, California Code of Regulation provisions, and the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard which would minimize the project’s potential to result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. Furthermore, the project would include a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway with public access to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway, 96 bicycle parking spaces, and a bicycle repair station to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle transportation and reduce the use of gasoline vehicles.

With implementation of applicable energy efficiency measures, the project would minimally increase energy demand and petroleum demand due to the development of the project, compared with existing conditions. Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Senate Bill (SB) 100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045. Considering the project would be powered by the existing electricity grid and supplemented from its own solar power system, the project would eventually be powered completely by renewable energy as mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this statewide plan. Therefore, no conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of renewable energy or energy efficiency is anticipated. There would be no impact.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-3

4.16.3 Mineral Resources
a. Checklist Questions
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

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, or
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. b. Answers to Checklist Questions and Conclusions
1-2) The project is in a suburban area in Sebastopol. The project site and surrounding properties are part of a suburban area with no current oil or gas extraction. There are no known mineral deposits of local or regional significance identified in or near the project site (California Geologic Survey, 2013). There are also no mining operations in or near the project site (California Department of Conservation 2016b).

The site is not designated as a significant mineral resources zone, and the project would not alter or displace mineral resources or mining activities. No impacts would occur.

4.16.4 Recreation
a. Checklist Questions
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

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; or Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. b. Answers to Checklist Questions and Conclusions
1-2) As discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, the City of Sebastopol owns and operates several parks and open space areas, comprised of 36.3 acres of developed parkland and approximately 240 acres of undeveloped open space (City of Sebastopol 2016). As mentioned under Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the proposed project would generate an estimated 204 new residents, which would represent less than three percent of the total citywide population.

The City of Sebastopol Municipal Code 17.280.020 requires all new residential development projects and subdivisions to dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both, at the option of the City, except as set forth in Government Code Section 66477(c)(7) and (8), for neighborhood or community parks or recreational purposes. The proposed project includes 107,200 square feet (2.46 acres) of common open space and construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site, including a new pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south border of the site.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.16-4
The incremental increase in new residents derived from the project would not substantially alter citywide demand for parks such that substantial physical deterioration of parks would occur, or the construction of new recreational facilities would be required. Payment of the in-lieu of fees or dedication of parkland or open space to maintain the minimum park to resident ratio would sufficiently mitigate any growth and impacts to parks induced by the proposed project. New or physically altered parks would not be required for the project and impacts would be less than significant.

The West County Trail parallels Gravenstein Highway, going from Sebastopol to Forestville. The proposed project would provide direct public access to the enhanced pedestrian pathway connecting the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the south border of the site. Trail users may not be able to access the trail from the project site while construction is ongoing.

However, they could access the trail from other access points and this impact would be temporary.

Other amenities include on-site areas that would serve future residents of the project, such as bicycle parking spaces, gardens, active and passive seating areas, children’s play areas, and a meditation hammock garden. The environmental impacts regarding construction of these amenities are analyzed throughout Section 4 of this report.

The parks closest to the project site are Ragal Ranch Park, located approximately .6 miles southwest of the project site, and Brookhaven Super Park, located approximately 0.7 miles south of the project site. Construction of the project would not involve off-site activities or construction that would directly affect these parks. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.16.5 Wildfire
a. Checklist Questions
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would:

Be located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
Be located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
Be located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or Be located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones and expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Environmental Impact Analysis
Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.16-5
b. Answers to Checklist Questions and Conclusions
1-4) The project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or state responsibility area. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 3.25 miles west of the project site (CalFire 2007). As the project site is not located in or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, no impact would occur.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy

4.16-6
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses growth-inducing impacts, irreversible environmental impacts, and energy impacts that would be caused by the proposed project.

5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.

However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project's growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.1.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, the proposed project would add 80 residential units with the potential for up to 16 ADUs conservatively resulting in 96 new residential units and therefore would directly generate population growth. Based on a per-person household rate of 2.12 for the City of Sebastopol (DOF 2023), these 96 units would add an estimated 204 new residents to the City population. The city’s 2022 population is estimated at 7,433 (DOF 2023). The addition of 204 new residents from the proposed project to the city would therefore increase the population of Sebastopol to approximately 7,637 residents. As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the City of Sebastopol is expected to plan for a total of 213 new units through the 2023-2031 RHNA planning period (City of Sebastopol 2023).

Through the Housing Element, the City has identified meeting this goal through primarily projected ADU development and pending, approved, or permitted projects. As shown on Table 16 of the Housing Element, the proposed project is considered within the City’s pending project list which would count for RHNA credit (City of Sebastopol 2023), with the market rate units providing 68 of the City’s required 92 Above Moderate Income (AMI) units, and 12 of the required 35 Moderate Income (MI) units.

The Housing Element underwent separate CEQA review and was ultimately approved by the City of Sebastopol in January 2023. Furthermore, given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional residential units under the project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities.

In addition, the City has a Growth Management Ordinance which allocates 50 dwelling units per year (plus exempt units), with carryover provisions. Once a residential project has obtained final discretionary approval, then needed allocations can be issued on a first come, first served basis by the Planning Director for the remaining allocations available that year in accordance with SMC

17.500.030(B). These dwelling allocations are valid until the discretionary approval expires. There are currently 149 unit allocations available (as of January 1, 2023) for non-exempt units, of which the proposed project would need 68 units. Given the current development pipeline of anticipated Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
5-2
projects, and timeline for the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequate allocations would be available for the project.

Therefore, because the project is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, development in accordance with the project would not indirectly induce growth in the City.

Overall, population growth associated with the project would not result in significant long-term physical environmental effects, other than those already disclosed in this EIR.

5.1.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction.

Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of the project would not be growth-inducing from a temporary employment standpoint. The proposed project would not involve new commercial uses that would add long-term employment opportunities. Overall, the proposed project would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result.

5.1.3 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses and agricultural areas that are served by existing infrastructure. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, existing infrastructure in Sebastopol would be adequate to serve the project. Minor improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure could be needed, but would be sized to specifically serve the project. No new roads would be required. Project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth.

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects
The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project.

The proposed project involves residential development in the City of Sebastopol. Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. Construction would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed project.

The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, development would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture.

Consequently, development would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable resources would be less than significant.

Again, consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the proposed project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, with implementation of mitigation measures, development and operation of the proposed project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. Additionally, Section 4.13, Transportation, concludes that long-term impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation based on City and regional thresholds.

The project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 4.12, Public Services, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, impacts to these service systems would not be significant.

CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR concludes that the proposed project would not result in impacts that are significant and unavoidable.

5.3 Energy Effects
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(2) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to discuss the potential for a project to result in impacts related to energy consumption and/or conservation. A project may have the potential to cause such impacts if it would result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy, including electricity, natural gas, or transportation fuel supplies and/or resources. Impacts associated with energy use are discussed in Section 4.16, Effects Found to be Less than Significant, of this EIR and were found to be less than significant.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
5-4
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives (stated in Section 2 of this EIR) but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives for the proposed project, are as follows:
 Develop diverse residential uses, including ADUs, that add diversity to the City of Sebastopol's ownership housing supply and meet a variety of residents’ needs by encouraging inherent affordability and providing housing opportunities for households at a variety of income levels and life stages.
 Develop a well-designed ownership residential townhome project that includes accessible and adaptable features in every building to provide ADA accessibility beyond what is required by the building code.
 Construct a single, cohesive development consisting of high-quality, contemporary urban design that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forest that will remain.  Bolster the connection between the community and the West County Trail through the preservation of existing pathways and ensuring continued use of the trail.  Achieve the streamlined and efficient processing and approval of the project including benefits available to developments that include affordable housing consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.

Included in this analysis are three alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project.

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Density
 Alternative 3: Increased Development Density
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the proposed project and each of the alternatives considered. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-2
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics Feature Proposed Project
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative 2: Reduced
Development Density
Alternative 3: Increased
Development Density
Dwelling Units 80 units, with a
maximum of 16 ADUs
0 units 73 units, with a
maximum of 14 ADUs
103 units
Density1 13.1 dwelling units/acre 0 dwelling units/acre 11.5 dwelling units/acre 16.9 dwelling units/acre Maximum
Building Height
3 stories with Density
Bonus Waiver
0 stories 3 stories with Density
Bonus Waiver
3 stories with Density
Bonus Waiver
Parking Spaces 218 spaces 0 spaces 200 spaces 186 spaces

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

6.1.1 Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed residential development and subsequent construction of internal roadways, parking, and associated site improvements would not occur, and that the current, undeveloped use of the site would remain. Because no construction or development would occur under the Alternative 1, the 22 trees proposed to be removed for the project would not be removed and the existing 133 trees on site would remain. The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives related to increasing housing inventory to address statewide and local housing needs or provide housing opportunities for a variety of income levels and life stages within the city of Sebastopol, as residential development would not occur under this alternative.

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
Under Alternative 1, existing use of the project site would continue and residential development and subsequent construction of internal roadways, parking, and associated site improvements would not occur. Because this alternative would not involve construction of new residences, roadways, utility connections, or other site disturbance, Alternative 1 would not result in construction-related impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or noise. In terms of operation, Alternative 1 would involve continued use as undeveloped land and would not result in the future operation of 96 total residences, which would require additional utility connections. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to energy, hydrology and water quality, or utilities, as the project site would not require new electricity, water, and sewer connections or infrastructure under this alternative. Furthermore, because Alternative 1 would not result in new residential uses on the project site, there would be no impacts to aesthetics and land use and planning. Finally, vehicle traffic to and from the project site would remain the same as existing conditions, and Alternative 1 would not result in impacts to transportation.

Altogether, no new environmental impacts would occur under Alternative 1, this alternative would not meet project objectives identified within the EIR nor meet goals related to increasing housing inventory.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3

6.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Development Density

6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 would involve a reduced total buildout of 73 residential units, with the potential for up to 14 accessory dwelling units (ADUs), resulting in 87 potential housing units. Alternative 2 would result in a reduction of 9 residential units compared to the proposed project. Because this alternative would involve fewer residences, less grading and excavation would be required as fewer units, roads, and utility connections would be constructed, and fewer trees would be removed.

Furthermore, more of the project site would be available for open space and more trees would remain on site compared to the proposed project, as the proposed project would encourage buildout over a larger area than Alternative 2. New utility infrastructure would still be required on the project site under this alternative, including stormwater retention basins, internal roadways and parking, and water pipelines between existing water line infrastructure and proposed townhomes.

On-site soil contaminants could remain undisturbed under this alternative, depending on the design.

Alternative 2 would not meet goals related to increasing housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project as development would be reduced compared to the proposed project, and may not be financially feasible due to development costs.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
There are no scenic routes within the vicinity of the project site, the project site is not visible from state scenic highways, and future residences would be shielded from view by the existing topography of the project site. Construction of future residences under Alternative 2 would not be visible from scenic routes identified by the City or state scenic highways. While Alternative 2 would require the removal of trees, fewer trees would be removed under this alternative as only 87 future residences would be constructed across the project site. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not have a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or state scenic highways. Impacts would be less than significant under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 2 would involve construction of fewer residences and fewer roadways within the project site, and would remove fewer trees compared to the proposed project, which would result in reduced impacts to the project site’s existing visual character. Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2 which would reduce impacts related to tree removal to a less than significant level. Additionally, because only 87 residences would be constructed across the project site under Alternative 2, impacts to public views of the project site would be slightly reduced under this alternative. Therefore, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site compared to existing conditions. However, because Alternative 2 would result in the future construction of 9 fewer residences than the proposed project, new sources of light and glare would be reduced. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure AES-4, which would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-4
b. Air Quality
Alternative 2 would involve fewer residences and therefore a reduction in residents compared to the proposed project. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 Clean Air. Additionally, because this alternative would involve construction of 9 fewer units, construction-generated emissions and operational emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project. However, as the overall infrastructure to support the development would still be needed, Alternative 2 may result in higher air quality impacts, as it would not be consistent with General Plan goals that encourage compact development and efficient land use. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in a cumulatively conservable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment.

Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 2 would involve construction of residences within the same portions of the project site, nearby sensitive receptors. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 which would reduce construction-related emissions. Alternative 2 would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Overall, impacts related to air quality would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. c. Biological Resources
Four special status wildlife species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the project site. Due to the reduction in number units, slightly less of the project site would be disturbed by Alternative 2, and impacts to special status species and sensitive communities would be minimally reduced. However, Alternative 2 would still potentially impact special status species and sensitive natural communities during construction and operation, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(c) would be required. Impacts to these biological resources under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

The project site is not known to contain regionally significant wildlife corridors or habitat linkages, and due to surrounding development, the proposed project would not significantly impede wildlife movement. Alternative 2 would involve 9 fewer residences, which would leave only slightly more of the project site available for local wildlife movement compared to the proposed project. Impacts to wildlife movement under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project would require the removal of 22 trees. Because Alternative 2 would involve development of fewer residential units, slightly fewer trees would need to be removed under this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would preserve the existing trees as much as possible. Tree replanting under the direction of a qualified forester, arborist, or horticulturalist pursuant to Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) would also be required under this alternative.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project. d. Cultural Resources
Because this alternative would involve the construction of 9 fewer residences, less grading and excavation would occur compared to the proposed project. While grading and excavation that would occur under Alternative 2 could potentially unearth, adversely change, or damage previously unidentified archaeological resources, this alternative’s potential to do so is slightly reduced compared to the proposed project due to its smaller development footprint. Although Mitigation Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
Measure CUL-2 would still be required under this alternative, potential impacts to cultural resources would be slightly reduced under Alternative 2. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. e. Geology and Soils
The project site is not located on an active or inactive fault. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. The project site is located in a seismically active region, and seismic ground shaking could result in risk of property damage and injury or death to project occupants. As under the proposed project, development facilitated by Alternative 2 would be required to comply with California Building Code and would implement geotechnical investigation recommendations as required by SMC Chapter 16.40, which would minimize risk of damage, injury, or death related to seismic ground shaking. Additionally, because Alternative 2 would involve fewer residents on site, risks of damage, injury, and death would be reduced. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Portions of the project site are located on potentially expansive soil, which could create risks to life or property. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement seismic and soil stability measures included in the project geotechnical report, as required by SMC Chapter 16.40.

Incorporation of these measures would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Additionally, Alternative 2 would involve reduced development compared to the proposed project, and would therefore result in less risk related to expansive soils. Impacts related to expansive soils under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Construction of Alternative 2 would require grading and excavation, which could result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Similar to the proposed project, construction activities under this alternative would be subject to NPDES Construction General Permit requirements, which would include preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include best management practices to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. Because Alternative 2 would involve reduced development compared to the proposed project, less grading and excavation would be required. Therefore, with implementation of NPDES requirements, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The project site has a low risk of liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and ground failure. Alternative 2 would also be required to implement design recommendations from the geotechnical report to minimize risk of substantial adverse effects related to seismic ground failure pursuant to SMC Chapter 16.40. Because Alternative 2 would involve reduced development compared to the proposed project, fewer project occupants would be at risk of seismic ground failure. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.5, Geology and Soils, the project is underlain by a single geologic unit with high potential paleontological sensitivity. Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-7 which would ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources are less than significant. Alternative 2 would involve reduced development compared to the proposed project, and would therefore have a slightly reduced risk of impacting paleontological resources or geologic features. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-6
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would generate temporary GHG emissions during construction and long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. As discussed in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would generate emissions that would exceed emission reduction goals established by BAAQMD GHG thresholds. While this alternative would generate a similar amount of construction-related GHG emissions per residence, Alternative 2 would involve 9 fewer residential units than the proposed project and thus a reduced total amount of GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, emissions per capita would remain the same, and Alternative 2 would similarly exceed the emission reduction goals, and would result in slightly higher VMT, as discussed further under Transportation. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Alternative 2 would also be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts under Alternative 2 related to consistency with applicable plans would be less than significant, and reduced as compared to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts related to GHG emissions under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in 9 fewer residential units being constructed, thereby reducing hazardous material use, storage and transportation resulting from construction of those units. The operation of the site for residential use would remain the same, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would be subject to the same regulations as the proposed project. Impacts under Alternative 2 related to transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a school and associated with an open Voluntary Agreement clean up case. The existing conditions at this known release site would result in a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment during grading and construction at the project site. Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, which would remediate the on-site soil contaminants present at the project site to less than significant levels.

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or a mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not result in impacts related to airport safety or wildland fires. Alternative 2 would develop residential units and internal roadways similar to those of the proposed project. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that Alternative 2 would not impair with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts related to hazards under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 2 could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, and soil stockpiling. Furthermore, operational activities, including the introduction of new impervious surfaces to the site, could also impact surface and groundwater quality. As discussed in Section 4.8, Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations and required permits would reduce the project’s risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other construction pollutants, and risk of interfering with stormwater recharge. Similarly, Alternative 2 would be subject to the same regulations and required permits, and therefore would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction. Water use during construction, mostly for dust suppression spraying, would be temporary and limited to the construction period, which would be reduced under Alternative 2. Therefore, water use during construction of Alternative 2 would be only slightly reduced compared to the proposed project and Alternative 2 would similarly not deplete groundwater sources. Alternative 2 would construct 9 fewer residences which would require fewer driveways, and therefore result in slightly less impervious surfaces than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, runoff from impervious surfaces would be detained in detention basins and recharged adjacent to the site, resulting in the same amount of groundwater recharge post-project as under existing conditions.

Therefore, Alternative 2 would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement erosion and sedimentation controls under the NPDES General Permit and SMC, and North Coast RWQCB requirements. Stormwater runoff would be captured and controlled by on-site detention facilities, as under the proposed project. This alternative would result in less new impervious surfaces at the project site due to the reduced amount of development, would be required to implement sedimentation and erosion control measures and stormwater capture measures, and would result in less alteration of on-site drainage patterns. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of planned drainage systems. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not degrade the water quality of surface water or groundwater within the planning area of the North Coast RWQCB Basin Plan or Santa Rosa Groundwater Management Plan. Alternative 2 would comply with relevant water quality regulations and policies, including NPDES Construction General Permit, North Coast RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030, and SMC requirements, which would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project construction and operational activities. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Furthermore, as under the proposed project, Alternative 2 would comply with established regulations and requirements for stormwater control, including through the implementation of post-construction stormwater management controls and construction of on-site stormwater detention areas. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable water quality control plan or the sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
i. Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would occur on an undeveloped project site which would not separate existing communities. As such, Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur, similar to the proposed project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-8
As demonstrated in Tables 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 of Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Sebastopol General Plan and the SMC. Because Alternative 2 would involve reduced development compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the policies of the General Plan and the SMC that have the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
j. Noise
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would include noise from the site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. This would also occur under Alternative 2; however, because Alternative 2 would involve slightly reduced development compared to the proposed project, fewer residences would be constructed under Alternative 2, which would decrease the amount of construction noise and vibration that would occur. Additionally, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 which would reduce operational noise impacts.

Therefore, impacts would be reduced, and operational noise under Alternative 2 would not exceed City Exterior Noise Thresholds as shown in Section 4.10, Noise. Impacts related to construction and operational noise and vibration under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
k. Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in the construction of 80 units, with the potential for up to 16 ADUs on a currently undeveloped site. Alternative 2 has a reduced total buildout of 73 residential units with the potential for up to 14 ADUs which would result in the addition of 19 fewer residents1 to the total city population compared to the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would occur on an undeveloped site which would not displace existing people or housing. Impacts related to population growth under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
l. Public Services
The proposed project would not result in a significant population increase which would require the addition of new police or fire protection facilities, schools, parks, or public facilities. Alternative 2 would result in 9 fewer residential units than the proposed project. Therefore, it can be assumed that Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts to public services, similar to the proposed project.
m. Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the project would conflict with the City of Sebastopol General Plan. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1 which would provide a safe crossing location for pedestrians, and as a result, this alternative would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit or roadway facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
1 19 residents = 204 residents under proposed project - (84 units*2.12 residents per household) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9
The proposed project would generate new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to and from the project site.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in a significant VMT impact. Alternative 2 would involve the future operation of only 84 residences, as compared to the 96 residences evaluated under the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, a reduction to the transportation model’s VMT was applied to capture VMT reductions associated with an increase in residential density over 9.1 units per acre. Because Alternative 2 would result in a less dense development buildout compared to the proposed project, it is assumed to cause a greater VMT impact. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be slightly increased as compared to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, vehicle use associated with the proposed project would not generate hazards associated with incompatible uses or vehicles on roadways. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include interior roadways. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to transportation hazards and emergency access, and similar to the proposed project.
n. Tribal Cultural Resources
Because this alternative would involve the construction of 9 fewer residences, less grading and excavation would occur compared to the proposed project. While grading and excavation that would occur under Alternative 2 could potentially unearth, adversely change, or damage previously unidentified tribal cultural resources, this alternative’s potential to do so is slightly reduced compared to the proposed project due to its smaller development footprint. Although Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would still be required under this alternative, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be slightly reduced under Alternative 2. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. o. Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would be consistent with growth anticipated by the City and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities. Alternative 2 would involve 9 fewer residences; therefore, the growth facilitated by Alternative 2 would be reduced as compared to the proposed project, and would also be within growth anticipated by the City. Impacts to water facilities under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, wastewater generated from future residential development on the project site would be serviced by existing wastewater infrastructure under Alternative 2. The amount of wastewater generated by the proposed project would be within the capacity for the Subregional Water Reclamation System Treatment Plant. Alternative 2 would result in 9 fewer residences; therefore, the growth under Alternative 2 would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project and would be within the growth anticipated by the City. Therefore, no additional expansion of existing wastewater services would be required. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be required to meet all City policies and discharge requirements for stormwater. Specifically, compliance with SMC Chapter 13.20 and SMC Chapter 15.78 would ensure that adequate stormwater drainage facilities would be provided on site. Stormwater generated by Alternative 2, as under the proposed project, would be routed to proposed on-site detention ponds or existing detention pond for the adjacent office park.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-10
Therefore, the project would not require expansion of existing stormwater services, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years available to serve the project. As described above, Alternative 2 would require less water than the proposed project; therefore, the City would have adequate water supplies to serve the project site in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 214 tons of solid waste per year, or less than one percent of the remaining capacity of the Central Disposal Site. Alternative 2 would involve the future construction and operation of 9 fewer residences than the proposed project.

Therefore, Alternative 2 would generate less solid waste, which would still be less than one percent of Central Disposal Site’s remaining capacity. Alternative 2 would also be required to comply with applicable local and state solid waste reduction measures. Therefore, impacts to related to solid waste under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. p. Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant
Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant, found that the proposed project would not have a significant impact to the following resources: Agriculture and Forestry, Energy, Minerals, Recreation, and Wildfire. Alternative 2 would result in the following impacts to the aforementioned resource areas:
 Agriculture and Forestry: No impacts would occur under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project.
 Energy: Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
 Minerals: No impacts would occur under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project.  Recreation: Impacts under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
 Wildfire: No impacts would occur under Alternative 2, similar to the proposed project.

6.3 Alternative 3: Increased Development Density

6.3.1 Description
Alternative 3 would involve an increased total buildout of 103 residential units. Alternative 3 would not include the potential for ADUs. Because this alternative would involve 23 more single-family residences compared to the proposed project, more grading and excavation would be required as more unit and utility connections would be constructed, and 27 more on-site trees would be removed. Alternative 3 would result in a maximum building height of 3 stories, similar to the proposed project. Furthermore, less of the project site would be available for open space and less trees would remain on site compared to the proposed project. New utility infrastructure would still be required on the project site under this alternative, including stormwater retention basins, internal roadways and parking, and water pipelines between existing water line infrastructure and proposed townhomes.

Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives, similar to the proposed project. These objectives include constructing a single, cohesive development consisting of high-quality, contemporary urban Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11
design that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forestry that will remain; and bolstering the connection between the community and the West County Trail through the preservation of existing pathways and ensuring continued use of the trail. However, Alternative 3 would not meet goals related to increasing diverse housing inventory as effectively as the proposed project since ADA-accessible ADUs would not be included and would not meet project objectives related to preserving the existing urban forest to the same extent as the proposed project.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
There are no scenic routes within the vicinity of the project site, the project site is not visible from state scenic highways, and future residences would be shielded from view by the existing topography of the project site. Construction of future residences under Alternative 3 would not be visible from scenic routes identified by the City or state scenic highways. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project and would not have a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas or state scenic highways. Impacts would be less than significant under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would involve construction of more residences and more roadways within the project site, and would remove more trees compared to the proposed project, which would result in increased impacts to the project site’s existing visual character. Alternative 3 would require the removal of 27 trees, which is 5 more trees than the proposed project. However, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2 which would reduce impacts related to tree removal to a less than significant level. Additionally, because 103 residences would be constructed across the project site under Alternative 3, impacts to public views of the project site would be slightly increased under this alternative due to increased residential density overall. Alternative 3 would result in more single-family residences and less trees on-site, which would affect the views from surrounding areas. Overall, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the project site would be increased compared to the proposed project, yet remain less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 3.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site compared to existing conditions. However, because Alternative 3 would result in the future construction of 12 more residences than the proposed project, new sources of light and glare would be increased. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure AES-4, which would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project. b. Air Quality
Alternative 3 would involve the same amount of grading as the proposed project; however, this alternative would require the use of additional construction equipment and/or a longer construction period compared to the proposed project as more residential units would be built.

Similarly, this alternative would increase operational emissions, as this alternative would accommodate 23 more residences than the proposed project, for a total of 15 more residents.2 Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that Alternative 3 would result in slightly higher pollutant 2 15 residents = 204 residents under proposed project - (103 units*2.12 residents per household) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-12
emissions than the proposed project. Impacts would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would potentially expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still be required under this alternative, and impacts would be slightly increased due to additional construction.

However, emissions would not substantially increase under this alternative because construction would generally be similar to the proposed project. Further, while this alternative would involve 23 more residences than the proposed project, the quantity of construction equipment and overall construction timeline would be comparable to the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, construction-related odors would be short-term and temporary, and Alternative 3 would not result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Overall, impacts related to air quality would be slightly increased under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed project, but impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. c. Biological Resources
Despite the higher density, Alternative 3 would disturb slightly more area than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar impacts to special-status plant and animal species. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Alternative 2 would still potentially impact special status species and sensitive natural communities during construction and operation, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(c) would be required. Impacts to these biological resources under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project would require the removal of 22 trees. Because Alternative 3 would involve development of more residential units, 5 more trees would need to be removed under this alternative. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would preserve the existing trees as much as possible. Tree replanting under the direction of a qualified forester, arborist, or horticulturalist pursuant to Sebastopol Municipal Code (SMC) would also be required under this alternative.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project.

As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not impact riparian or sensitive natural communities as the project site does not contain such features. Further, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not interfere with wildlife movement as no known regionally significant wildlife movement corridors or habitat linkages are known to occur in the project site, and Alternative 3 would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Overall, impacts to biological resources would be similar to the proposed project under Alternative 3 and would be less than significant with mitigation.
d. Cultural Resources
Because this alternative would involve the construction of 15 more residences, slightly more grading and excavation would occur compared to the proposed project. This alternative would involve grading and excavation of the same area as the proposed project, and these ground-disturbing activities could potentially unearth, adversely change, or damage previously unidentified archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would be required under this alternative, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-13
e. Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would be subject to the same seismic and soil-related hazards as the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would involve construction of 23 additional units and would therefore facilitate a larger project site population compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, ground failure, seismicrelated liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project.

Portions of the project site are located on potentially expansive soil, which could create risks to life or property. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement seismic and soil stability measures included in the project geotechnical report, as required by SMC Chapter 16.40.

Incorporation of these measures would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. Impacts related to expansive soils under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would also be required to implement an SWPPP to minimize impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Due to the presence of a geologic unit with high paleontological sensitivity, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-7 and impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Overall, Alternative 3 would result in slightly increased impacts related to geology and soils compared to the proposed project, though impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would generate temporary GHG emissions during construction and long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with operation. The proposed project would add a total of 204 new residents to the project site and Alternative 3 would add an additional 15 residents compared to the proposed project. As such, the service population and the GHG emissions associated with Alternative 3 would increase. This increase would occur mostly due to increased vehicle trips associated with this alternative. Alternative 3 would include additional emissions, it would result in more GHG emissions overall compared to the proposed project and therefore result in greater impacts. Alternative 3 would similarly exceed the emission reduction goals. Therefore, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 would also be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts under Alternative 3 related to consistency with applicable plans would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, Alternative 3 would increase impacts related to GHG emissions, although impacts would remain less than significant.
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in 23 more residential units being constructed, thereby increasing hazardous material use, storage and transportation resulting from construction of those units. However, Alternative 3 would only result in 15 additional residents compared to the proposed project. The operation of the site for residential use would remain the same, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would be subject to the same regulations as the Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-14
proposed project. Impacts under Alternative 3 related to transport, use, disposal, or upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a school and associated with an open Voluntary Agreement clean up case. The existing conditions at this known release site would result in a potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment during grading and construction at the project site. Alternative 3 would be required to implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-3a and HAZ-3b, which would remediate the on-site soil contaminants present at the project site to less than significant levels.

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or a mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not result in impacts related to airport safety or wildland fires. Alternative 3 would develop 23 more residential units and internal roadways compared to the proposed project. However, the development footprint would remain the same and Alternative 3 would result in roughly 15 new residents compared to the proposed project. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that Alternative 3 would not impair with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts related to hazards under Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.
h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 3 could result in soil erosion due to earth-moving activities such as excavation, grading, soil compaction and moving, and soil stockpiling. Furthermore, operational activities, including the introduction of new impervious surfaces to the site, could also impact surface and groundwater quality. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations and required permits would reduce the project’s risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other construction pollutants, and risk of interfering with stormwater recharge. Similarly, Alternative 3 would be subject to the same regulations and required permits, and therefore would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction. Water use during construction, mostly for dust suppression spraying, would be temporary and limited to the construction period, which would be slightly increased under Alternative 3 but would similarly not deplete groundwater sources. Alternative 3 would construct 23 more residences which would require more driveways, and therefore result in more impervious surfaces than the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, runoff from impervious surfaces would be retained in retention basins and recharged on site, resulting in the slightly increased groundwater recharge post-project as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge at the project site. Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to implement erosion and sedimentation controls under the NPDES General Permit and SMC, and North Coast RWQCB requirements. Stormwater runoff would be captured and controlled by on-site detention facilities, as under the proposed project. This alternative would result in more new impervious surfaces at the project site due to the increased amount of development but would be required to implement Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-15
sedimentation and erosion control measures and stormwater capture measures as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of planned drainage systems. Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would not degrade the water quality of surface water or groundwater within the planning area of the North Coast RWQCB Basin Plan or Santa Rosa Groundwater Management Plan. Alternative 3 would comply with relevant water quality regulations and policies, including NPDES Construction General Permit, North Coast RWQCB Order No. R1-2015-0030, and SMC requirements, which would reduce the risk of water degradation from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project construction and operational activities. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. Furthermore, as under the proposed project, Alternative 3 would comply with established regulations and requirements for stormwater control, including through the implementation of post-construction stormwater management controls and construction of on-site stormwater detention areas. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable water quality control plan or the sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
i. Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would occur on an undeveloped project site which would not separate existing communities. As such, Alternative 3 would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur, similar to the proposed project.

As demonstrated in Tables 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 of Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Sebastopol General Plan and the SMC. Although Alternative 3 would result in 23 more residential units compared to the proposed project, they would be located within the same development footprint. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would result in a population increase of approximately 15 residents compared to the proposed project.

Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that Alternative 3 would continue to meet the same General Plan goals and policies that the proposed project does. Alternative 3 would also be subject to the same SMC development standards as the proposed project and would require the City’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit for 80 townhouse units within the OLM zoning district, site development review, and a Vesting Tentative Map. In addition, Alternative 3 would require the use of a State Density Bonus to allow for a waiver to increase the building height to three stories.

Alternative 3 would be consistent with the uses and development standards allowed within the R7 district with the requested waiver for building height. Alternative 3 would not result in conflicts to any applicable plans or policies, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
j. Noise
Similar to the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would result in temporary noise in the project site vicinity, exposing surrounding nearby receivers to increased noise levels. Construction of the proposed project would include noise from the site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. Construction of Alternative 3 would involve similar construction equipment to the proposed project, which would not generate noise that would exceed established standards. However, because of increased buildout, Alternative 3 would involve Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-16
the use of additional construction equipment and/or a longer construction period. As a result, impacts related to construction noise and groundborne vibration would be slightly increased under Alternative 3. However, such impacts are anticipated to remain less than significant.

Additionally, because Alternative 3 would result in a site population of 219, approximately 15 more residents than the proposed project, operational noise associated with mechanical equipment and traffic would be increased as well. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 which would reduce operational noise impacts. Therefore, impacts would be reduced, and operational noise under Alternative 3 would not exceed City Exterior Noise Thresholds as shown in Section 4.10, Noise. Impacts related to construction and operational noise and vibration under Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not be within two miles of an airport or an airport land use plan. Therefore, noise impacts related to airports would be less than significant under this alternative, as they are for the proposed project. Overall, impacts related to noise would be slightly greater compared to the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant. k. Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in the construction of 103 units, an increase of 23 residential units compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would result in the addition of 15 more residents3 to the total city population compared to the proposed project. However, similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would occur on an undeveloped site which would not displace existing people or housing. Impacts related to population growth under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
l. Public Services
The proposed project would not result in a significant population increase which would require the addition of new police or fire protection facilities, schools, parks, or public facilities. Alternative 3 would result in 23 more residential units compared to the proposed project. However, this would translate to a population increase of 15 residents which would not constitute a significant population increase which might require new or physically altered public services to meet service ratios. Therefore, it can be assumed that Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to public services, similar to the proposed project.
m. Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the project would conflict with the City of Sebastopol General Plan. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would provide a safe crossing location for pedestrians, and as a result, this alternative would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit or roadway facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project would generate new VMT to and from the project site. As discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, the proposed project would not result in a significant VMT impact.

Alternative 3 would involve the future operation of 103 residences, as compared to the 96 residences evaluated under the proposed project. However, as discussed in Section 4.13, 3 15 residents = 204 residents under proposed project - (103 units*2.12 residents per household) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-17
Transportation, a reduction to the transportation model’s VMT was applied to capture VMT reductions associated with an increase in residential density over 9.1 units per acre. Because Alternative 3 would result in an increased density as compared to the proposed project, this would result in a lessened VMT impact overall. Impacts related to VMT under Alternative 3 would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would involve similar site access points as the proposed project and vehicle use associated with the proposed project would not generate hazards associated with incompatible uses or vehicles on roadways. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not substantially increase hazards associated with incompatible uses or vehicles on roadways, would provide adequate emergency access, and would have less than significant impacts. Overall, transportation impacts of Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation, and slightly less than the impacts of the proposed project.
n. Tribal Cultural Resources
Despite the higher density, Alternative 3 would disturb the same area as the proposed project.

Though there are no known tribal cultural resources present within the project site, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of Alternative 3 could encounter unknown tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would be required under this alternative, which would ensure that any unanticipated discoveries of tribal cultural resources are avoided or, where avoidance is infeasible, mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation.
o. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would involve the construction of 23 more residential units than the proposed project, and would result in increased demand for water, wastewater, electric power, or telecommunications facilities. However, Alternative 3 would be located on the same site as the proposed project, which is within the City of Sebastopol’s utility limits. Therefore, this alternative would not require new water supply facilities, beyond those associated with on-site project development. On-site improvements would be similar to those of the proposed project and would be slightly larger in size and capacity to serve the higher density development facilitated by this alternative. Impacts related to new or expanded water facilities would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As with the proposed project, wastewater conveyance and treatment service for this alternative would be provided by the City of Sebastopol. As described in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would generate approximately 18,100 gallons per day of wastewater.

Because development under Alternative 3 would be approximately 7 percent greater than the proposed project, this alternative would generate 7 percent more wastewater, or approximately 19,400 gallons per day. This represents approximately 2.3 percent of total Average Daily Dry Weather Flow entitlement capacity. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater and wastewater treatment capacities would remain less than significant under this alternative.

Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be required to meet all City policies and discharge requirements for stormwater. Specifically, compliance with SMC Chapter 13.20 and SMC Chapter 15.78 would ensure that adequate stormwater drainage facilities would be provided on site. Stormwater generated by Alternative 3, as under the proposed project, would be routed to proposed on-site detention ponds or existing detention pond for the adjacent office park.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-18
Therefore, the project would not require expansion of existing stormwater services, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

As described in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years available to serve the proposed project. Because Alternative 3 would involve 23 more units than the proposed project, or a 7 percent increase in the number of units, this alternative would involve a 7 percent increase in water demand, or approximately 10.3 million gallons per year. Similar to the proposed project, the water demand of Alternative 3 would represent less than 0.01 percent of the total City of Sebastopol water supply.

Therefore, while sufficient water supply is available for buildout of Alternative 3, impacts related to water supply would be increased under this alternative. Impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 214 tons of solid waste per year, or less than one percent of the remaining capacity of the Central Disposal Site. Alternative 3 would involve the future construction and operation of 23 more residences than the proposed project, resulting in roughly 230 tons of solid waste per year. Alternative 3 would generate more solid waste but would still be less than one percent of Central Disposal Site’s remaining capacity. Alternative 3 would also be required to comply with applicable local and state solid waste reduction measures.

Therefore, impacts to related to solid waste under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Overall, impacts related to wastewater, wastewater treatment capacities, solid waste capacities, and solid waste reduction would be less than significant, but greater than the proposed project. p. Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant
Section 4.16, Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant, found that the proposed project would not have a significant impact to the following resources: Agriculture and Forestry, Energy, Minerals, Recreation, and Wildfire. Alternative 3 would result in the following impacts to the aforementioned resource areas:
 Agriculture and Forestry: No impacts would occur under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project.
 Energy: Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
 Minerals: No impacts would occur under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project.  Recreation: Impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
 Wildfire: No impacts would occur under Alternative 3, similar to the proposed project.

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
In addition to the aforementioned alternatives, two other potential alternatives were discussed but ultimately rejected. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-19
jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
Therefore, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Nevertheless, the following discusses the potential alternatives which were considered and the reasoning for their respective rejection from further analysis.

Location Alternative
The City considered an alternative location for the proposed project. However, another site of similar or larger acreage, was not identified. Therefore, it would not be feasible to evaluate an alternative location. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) allows for consideration of alternatives to a project, or its location (emphasis added), but does not mandate inclusion of a location alternative in an EIR. Accordingly, to evaluate another location for an 80+ unit residential development would not be meaningful for the purposes of informing a decision about the proposed project, and a Location Alternative is not discussed further.

Reduced Height Alternative
During the EIR scoping process, a reduction in proposed building height from three stories to two stories was discussed. The proposed project seeks approval of a State Density Bonus law waiver which would allow the project to increase building height from two stories to three stories. This would achieve a key project objective which is to allow diverse housing on the project site, including affordable housing options. Additionally, the project seeks to construct a development that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forestry that will remain. To achieve denser housing on the project site while preserving as much of the existing trees, the project proposes three stories under the State Density Bonus law waiver. Therefore, reducing the height of the project would result in a reduction in the number of available units and would not meet key project objectives. Therefore, a Reduced Height Alternative is not discussed further.

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the environmental impacts of the project, regardless of the financial costs Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-20
associated. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project. The EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, none of the alternatives significantly reduce impacts resulting from the proposed project or eliminate the need for mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 1, No Project, assumes that the proposed development, and subsequent removal of trees and construction of utility connections and residences would not occur, and that the site would remain undeveloped. Therefore, no new impacts to environmental resource areas analyzed in this EIR would occur, and project mitigation measures would not be required. Although Alternative 1 would preserve lands for allowed uses and preserve existing woodlands, this alternative would not meet project objectives related to the provision of housing.

If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives be identified (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Based on this consideration, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts related to aesthetics and biological resources due to a reduced buildout and removal of less trees. However, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(c) and BIO-2 would still be required. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities as the proposed project. Alternative 2 would also result in greater impacts to VMT as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would leave slightly more of the project site undeveloped and would result in less overall buildout on the project site. Alternative 2 would meet project objectives related to increasing housing inventory, including ADUs, that add diversity to the City of Sebastopol's ownership housing supply; encouraging housing affordability and providing housing opportunities for households at a variety of income levels and life stages; and creating a cohesive development that respects and relates well to its surroundings and respects the urban forestry that will remain.

However, Alternative 2 would not meet these objectives as effectively as the proposed project as 9 fewer residences would be constructed under this alternative.

Alternative 3 would not significantly reduce any impacts compared to the proposed project.

However, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts to VMT compared to the proposed project but would not significantly reduce transportation impacts overall and Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would still be required. It would result in similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities as the proposed project, though mitigation identified in the EIR for respective issue areas would still be required.

Impacts to aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, and greenhouse gas emissions would be greater under Alternative 3 as compared to the proposed project. While impacts would generally be similar under Alternative 3, impacts would be reduced to a greater extent under Alternative 2 as it would involve less construction and development than Alternative 3. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not the environmentally superior alternative.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-21
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project Impact
Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative 2:

Reduced
Density
Alternative 3:

Increased
Density
Aesthetics Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ + -
Air Quality Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = -
Biological Resources Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ + =
Cultural Resources Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = =
Geology and Soils Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = -
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
+ = =
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant + = = Land Use and Planning Less than Significant + = =
Noise Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = =
Population and Housing Less than Significant + = =
Public Services Less than Significant + = =
Transportation Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ - +
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
+ = =
Utilities Less than Significant + = =
Impacts Found to be Less Than
Significant
Less than Significant + = =
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
6-22
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
Sebastopol, City of. 2015. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf. (accessed May 2023).

Sonoma, County of. 2023. Regional Parks – Joe Rodota Trail. https://parks.sonomacounty.ca.gov/visit/find-a-park/joe-rodota-trail. (accessed May 2023).

Environmental Setting
Sebastopol, City of. 2023. Building and Development Projects. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/ourcommunity/buildingprojects/ (accessed August 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023. California Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All Criteria Pollutants. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html (accessed August 2023) Project Description
Sebastopol, City of. 2015. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf. (accessed May 2023).
_____. 2023. GIS Viewer. https://maps.srcity.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?viewer=sebastopol. (accessed May 2023).

Sonoma, County of. 2023. Regional Parks – Joe Rodota Trail. https://parks.sonomacounty.ca.gov/visit/find-a-park/joe-rodota-trail. (accessed May 2023).

Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. San Francisco, CA. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en _____. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April 20, 2023. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide Version 2022.1. April 2022.
https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/CalEEMod_User_Guide_v2022.1.pdf California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-2
_____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last modified: May 4, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf (accessed September 2022). _____. 2022. Maps of State and Federal Area Designations. November 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/State_2022_O3.pdf (accessed May 2023).
_____. 2023a. Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. [website] N.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2023b. “Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed April 2023). _____. 2023c. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2023d. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed April 2023).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Brief for San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters Fresno v. County of Fresno and Friant Ranch, L.P. (2018), 6 Cal.5th 502, Case No. S219783.

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. 2016 Sebastopol General Plan Update. May 2016. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Draft-Environmental-ImpactReport.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 2014. _____. 2015. Overview of EPA’s Updates to the Air Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone. _____. 2022. Process of Reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Last Modified:

October 22, 2022 (accessed September 2023).
_____. 2023a. Health Effect of Ozone Pollution. Last Modified: May 24,2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023b. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Last Modified:

July 13,2023 (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023c. Basic Information about NO2. Last Modified: July 25, 2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023d. Sulfur Dioxide Basics. Last Modified: February 16, 2023 (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023e. Basic Information about Lead Air Pollution. Last Modified: July 5, 2023 (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023f. Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Last Modified: March 27, 2023. (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023g. Monitor Values Report. https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitorvalues-report (accessed September 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
_____. 2023h. “NAAQS Table”. Last modified: March 15, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023i. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Last Modified: September 1, 2023. https://wwwar.epa.gov/green-book (accessed September 2023).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Graton Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca3578
W-Trans. 2023. Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project. September 6, 2023 Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2003a. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind. Version 5.3.0. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2023b. California Natural Community List. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). Updated Thursday, June 1, 2023.
_____. 2023c. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS (accessed August 2023).

California Native Plant Society. 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. (online edition V9.5). www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed August 2023).

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, RW Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S Colla. 2015. Western bumble bee, Bombus occidentalis. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015.1.

Horticultural Associates. 20219 Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report. Sebastopol A Project, Sebastopol, CA. April 10, 2019. Prepared for City Ventures. Prepared by John C. Meserve, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. _____. 2023. North Gravenstein Highway, Sebastopol A Subdivision; additional tree removal documentation. January 17, 2023. Prepared for City Ventures.

Integral Consulting Inc. 2023. Biological Resource Analysis. The Canopy. Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California. July 2023. Prepared for City Ventures.

Johnson Marigot Consulting, LLC. 2021. Biological Constraints Analysis. 1003 Gravenstein Highway.

City of Sebastopol, Sonoma County, California. May 27, 2021. Prepared for SEB, LLC .

Koch, J., J. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U. S. Forest Service and the Pollinator Partnership with funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian- Romsos, J. Strittholt, M.

Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Survey Protocols for the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Version 2.2 April 12, 2019. _____. 20123. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/criticalhabitat.html (accessed August 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-4
United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 2023. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Located at:
https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography. Data refreshed July 2023 (accessed August 2023).

Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. Life history accounts for species in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Cultural Resources
Bancroft, Hubert How. 1885. History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. San Francisco, California:

A.L. Bancroft & Co.

Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company, San Francisco, California.

Dallas, S.F. 1955. The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822-1848. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington.

D’Oro, Stella. 2009. Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Dumke, Glenn S. 1994. The Boom of the 1880s in Southern California. Southern California Quarterly 76(1): 99–114.

Hildebrandt, William R. 2007. Northwest California: Ancient Lifeways among Forested Mountains, Flowering Rivers, and Rocky Shores. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. Jones and K. Klar, pp.83–98. Rowman Altamira Press.

Hurley, Marianne R. 2020. “Sonoma County Historic Overview,” County of Sonoma [web site.] https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Planning/Historic-Resources/Sonoma-County-HistoricOverview/, accessed March 19, 2020.

Hylkema, Mark G. 2002. Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Kyle, Douglas E. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Library of Congress. 2023. Mexican California. Electronic document at https://www.loc.gov/collections/california-first-person-narratives/articles-and-essays/earlycalifornia-history/mexican-california/ (accessed August 2023).

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby. 2002. Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.263-281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Livingston, M.M. 1914. The Earliest Spanish Land Grants in California. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California 9(3): 195–199.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
Meyer, Jack, and Jeffrey Rosenthal. 1998. An Archaeological Investigation of Artifacts and Human Remains from CA-CCO-637, Los Vaqueros Project Area, Contra Costa County, California.

Prepared by Anthropological Studies Center. Prepared for Contra Costa Water District.

Meyer, Jack, and Jeffrey Rosenthal. 1998. An Archaeological Investigation of Artifacts and Human Remains from CA-CCO-637, Los Vaqueros Project Area, Contra Costa County, California.

Prepared by Anthropological Studies Center. Prepared for Contra Costa Water District.

Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.

Fredrickson. 2007. Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.

Klar, pp. 99–124.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

National Park Service. 2015. Survey of Historic Sites and Buildings: Fort Ross, California. Electronic Document at https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/explorers/sitec6.htm (accessed August 2023).

Ragir, Sonia. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.

Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Sixth printing. 1963. Harlan Davidson, Inc. Wheeling, Illinois.

San Diego History & Heritage. 2023. San Diego History & Heritage. Electronic document at https://www.sandiego.org/explore/things-to-do/arts-culture/history-heritage.aspx (accessed August 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by De Novo Planning Group.

Prepared for the City of Sebastopol, Planning Department. _____. 2023. Sebastopol Profile. Electronic document at https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/ourcommunity/sebastopol-profile/ (accessed August 2023).

Sonoma, County of. 2023. Gravenstein Apples - Sonoma's Other World-Famous Crop. https://www.sonomacounty.com/articles/gravenstein_apples#:~:text=Gravs%20are%20prol ific%20producers%2C%20and,role%20in%20Sonoma%20County's%20commerce (accessed November 2023).

Sonoma County Permit Sonoma. 2023. Coastal History. Electronic document at https://permitsonoma.org/longrangeplans/adoptedlongrangeplans/currentlocalcoastalplan/coastalhistory (accessed August 2023).

Waugh, John C. 2003. On the Brink of Civil War: The Compromise of 1850 and How it Changed the Course of American History. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-6
Geology and Soils
Blake et al. 2005. Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California. https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2002/2402/ (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2021. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.

September 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed August 2023).

California Geological Survey. 1999, Revised 2002. Simplified Fault Activity Map of California.

Compiled by Charles W. Jennings and George J. Saucedo.

Delattre, M.P. and R.D. Koehler. 2008. Geologic map of the Sebastopol 7.5-minute quadrangle, Sonoma County, California. [map.] California Geological Survey. Preliminary Geologic Maps PFM-08-01, scale 1:24,000.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NCRS). 2023. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed August 2023).

Powell, C.L., R.W. Boessnecker, N.A. Smith, R.J. Fleck. S.J. Carlson, J.R. Allen, D.J. Long, A. M. SarnaWojcicki, R. B. Guruswami-Naidu. 2019. Geology and Paleontology of the Late Miocene Wilson Grove Formation at Bloomfield Quarry, Sonoma County, California. United States Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2019-5021.

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan.
http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Sonoma, County of. 2021. Sonoma County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://permitsonoma.org/x90463 (accessed August 2023).

United States Geographical Survey. 2007. Earthquake Hazards of The Bay Area Today. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1868calif/virtualtour/modern.php (accessed August 2023).

University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2023. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed August 2023).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2023. BAAQMD 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-7
______. 2021. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.”
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000_2019_ghg_inventory_ trends_20220516.pdf (accessed September 2023).
______. 2022. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32- climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023. “Regional Plan Targets.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainablecommunities-program/regional-plan-targets (accessed September 2023).

California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Energy Commission. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. August 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf (accessed September 2023).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
_____. 2021. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg3/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf (accessed September 2023).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2023. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed September 2023).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2023. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed September 2023).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed September 2023).

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Parmesan_2006.p df (accessed September 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-8
Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan. Adopted November 15, 2016. http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf (accessed September 2023).
______. 2022. Climate Action Framework. Adopted July 21, 2022. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Sebastopol-Climate-Action-Framework_FINAL_07-21-22-1.pdf (accessed September 2023).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUMCCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed September 2023).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2023a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated: August 25, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhousegases (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023b. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.” Last updated:

January 25, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gasemissions-and-sinks-1990-2019 (accessed September 2023). ______. 2023c. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Last updated: April 4, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findingsgreenhouse-gases-under-section-202a (accessed September 2023).

World Meteorological Organization. 2013. WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7862 (accessed September 2023).

W-Trans. 2023. Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project. September 6, 2023.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
California Department of Conservation, Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2023. “Well Finder.” Last modified: 2023. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 2023).

California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023. “Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility/Site Search.” Last modified: 2023. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search (accessed August 2023).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. Standard Voluntary Agreement, 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway. Proponent: SEB, LLC. September 8. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003135 (accessed August 2023).
______. 2023a. “EnviroStor.” Last modified: 2023. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed August 2023). ______ 2023b. Standard Voluntary Agreement, 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway. Proponent:

City Ventures Homebuilding, LLC. April 26. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003135 (accessed August 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-9
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023a. “GeoTracker.” Last modified: 2023.

Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023b. “California PFAS Investigations.” Last modified: 2023. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/ (accessed August 2023).

Sonoma, County of. Sonoma County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2021 – Volume 1. https://permitsonoma.org/Microsites/Permit%20Sonoma/Documents/Planning/Long%20Ra nge%20Plans/Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan/Adopted-Sonoma-County-MJHMP-Volume-1- December-2021.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec). 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, APNs 060- 261-026, 028, and 029, Sebastopol, California. September 12. ______. 2020. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, 1003, 1005, and 1007 Gravenstein Highway, Sebastopol, California. July 30.
______. 2022. Supplemental Site Investigation Report, 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway, Sebastopol, California. November 28. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60003135 (accessed August 2023).
______. 2023. Removal Action Workplan, 1009 and 1011 Gravenstein Highway, Sebastopol, California. May 22.

United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2023. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), “National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer.” Last modified: 2023. Available at:
https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ (accessed August 2023).

Hydrology and Water Quality
Adobe Associates Inc. 2023. Preliminary Drainage Report. ______. 2023. Preliminary Storm Water Low Impact Development Submittal for The Canopy City Ventures Homebuilding LLC.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. Tsunami Hazard Area Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/?extent=- 13752421.1256%2C4566017.4699%2C13625535.6586%2C4706050.1057%2C102100&utm_source=cgs+active&utm_content=sono ma (accessed September 2023).

California State Water Resources Control Board. Phase I MS4 Permits. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_i_municipal.h tml (accessed September 2023).

Department of Water Resources. 2020. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed September 2023).

Russian River Association. 2023. About. https://www.rrwatershed.org/about/ (accessed September 2023).

Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2021. Groundwater Sustainability Plan Santa Rosa Plain Groundwater Subbasin. http://santarosaplaingroundwater.org/wpcontent/uploads/000_Santa_Rosa_GSP_508.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-10
Sebastopol, City of. 2005. Water Master Plan. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/final_water_master_plan_report_07-10-1.pdf (accessed August 2023).
______. 2021. City of Sebastopol Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/City-of-Sebastopol-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.pdf (accessed September 2023).
______. 2023. Sebastopol Abridged Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Electronic document at https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Sebastopol-Abridged-WaterShortage-Contingency-Plan-060623.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). 2018. SGMA Data Viewer. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#boundaries (accessed September 2023).

Low Impact Development Manual CoPermittees. 2017. Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (Revised Dec. 2020) (accessed September 2023).

Stantec. 2022. Supplemental Site Investigation Report.

Land Use
Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf (accessed June 2023).
_____. 2023. Sebastopol Municipal Code. https://sebastopol.municipal.codes/SMC/17.20.030 (accessed July 2023).

Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. _____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01. April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Crocker, Malcolm J. (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN: 978-0-471- 39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02).
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00. cfm (accessed September 2023).
_____. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed September 2023).

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

November. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-11
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.

Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2022. City of Sebastopol Municipal Code. https://sebastopol.municipal.codes/ (accessed September 2023).

Veneklasen Associates, Inc. 2023. The Canopy Environmental Impact Report. September 12, 2023.

W-Trans, 2023. Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project. September 6, 2023.

Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern. https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/FinalBlueprintRelease_December2020_Gr owthPattern_Jan2021Update.pdf (accessed July 2023).

Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed July 2023).
_____. 2023. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ (accessed July 2023).

Employment Development Department (EDD). 2023. Sonoma County Annual Unemployment Rate and Labor Force.
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult.asp?m enuChoice=localAreaPro&criteria=unemployment+rate&categoryType=employment&geogA rea=0604000097&area=Sonoma+County&timeseries=unemployment+rateTimeSeries (accessed July 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf (accessed June 2023).
_____. 2023. City of Sebastopol 6th Cycle Housing Element. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Sebastopol-Adopted-Housing-Element-January-2023.pdf (accessed July 2023).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Subject Definitions. October 8, 2021. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household (accessed July 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-12
Public Services
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2022a. Sebastopol Union Elementary. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&City=Sebast opol&State=06&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictTyp e=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&DistrictType=8&DistrictType=9&NumOfStudentsRan (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2022b. West Sonoma County Union High.
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?Search=1&details=1&City=Sebast opol&State=06&DistrictType=1&DistrictType=2&DistrictType=3&DistrictType=4&DistrictTyp e=5&DistrictType=6&DistrictType=7&DistrictType=8&DistrictType=9&NumOfStudentsRan (accessed August 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2014. Sebastopol General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report. http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Sebastopol%20ECR_Final.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2021a. Annual Level of Service Report. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/4-20-21-LOS-Staff-Report-Final_Corrected-Page-Numbering-withClerical-Edits_FINAL.pdf (accessed August 2023). _____. 2021b. Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Sebastopol-Impact-Fees-03-18-21.pdf (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023a. Fire Department Feasibility Study. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/Final-Sebastopol-FR-01-03-23.pdf (accessed August 2023). _____. 2023b. Service Delivery Study. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/02/Sebastopol-FR-Fire-Prez.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Sonoma County Library. 2016. Appendix 1 – Library System Assessment. https://sonomalibrary.org/sites/default/files/attachments/facilities/170103_LibrarySystem-Assessment-FINAL.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Transportation
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. https://www.caleemod.com/handbook/index.html (accessed September 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2016. City of Sebastopol General Plan. http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf (accessed September 2023).

Sonoma County Transportation Authority. 2014. SCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, 2014 Update. https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/BikePedPlanUpdate2014_final.pdf (accessed September 2023). _____. 2020. Sonoma County Travel Behavior Study. https://scta.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2022/02/Sonoma_TBS_2-7-2020_web.pdf (accessed September 2023).

W-Trans. 2023. Transportation Impact Study for The Canopy Project. September 6, 2023 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Tribal Cultural Resources
Barrett, S. A. 1908. The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. In American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 6, edited by Frederic Ward Putnam, University of California Publications.

Bean, Lowell J., and Dorothea Theodoratus. 1978. Western and Northeastern Pomo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 289–305. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2022. History. Electronic document, accessed July 2022 at https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29491.

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. 2016. History. Electronic Resource. https://gratonrancheria.com/culture/history/ (accessed September 27, 2021).

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Kelly, Isabel. 1978. Coast Miwok. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8 (California), edited by William C. Sturtevant and Robert F. Heizer, pp. 414–425. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kennedy, Mary Jean. 1955. Culture Contact and the Acculturation of the Southwestern Pomo. PhD diss, University of California, Berkeley.

Lake County. 2023. History of Lake County Pomo Indians. Electronic document at https://www.lakecountyca.gov/1524/History-of-Lake-County-Pomo-Indians (accessed August 2023).

McLendon, Sally and Robert L. Oswalt. 1978. Eastern Pomo and Southeastern Pomo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274-288. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Milliken, Randall, Laurence Shoup, and Beverly Ortiz. 2009. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and Their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.

Santa Clara University. 2023. Native American Migration Timeline. Electronic document accessed at https://webpages.scu.edu/migrations/nativeamericanstimeline.html (accessed August 2023).

Walker, Neil Alexander. 2013. A Grammar of Southern Pomo: An Indigenous Language of California.

Diss., University of California Santa Barbara.

Utilities and Service Systems
California Cable & Telecommunications Association. 2019. “Cable in California.” https://www.calcable.org/learn/cable-in-california/ (accessed August 2023).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-14
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Central Disposal Site (49-AA-0001).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1224?siteID=3621. (accessed July 2023).
2023b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates (accessed July 2023).

Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E]. 2022. Company Profile. 2022. https://www.pge.com/en_US/aboutpge/company-information/profile/profile.page (accessed September 2022).

Santa Rosa, City of. 2007. Update to the Recycled Water Master Plan. https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/8961/Recycled-Water-Master-PlanPDF?bidId= (accessed August 2023).

Sebastopol, City of. 2005. Water System Master Plan. accessed August 2023). _____. 2006. Storm Water Management Plan for the City of Sebastopol. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/sebastopol_s wmp.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2014. Sebastopol General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report. http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Sebastopol%20ECR_Final.pdf (accessed August 2023).
_____. 2016a. Draft Environmental Impact Report – 2016 Sebastopol General Plan. http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/content/documents-and-maps/index.html (accessed July 2023).
_____. 2016b. 2016 Sebastopol General Plan. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/departments/planning/ (accessed July 2023).
_____. 2023a. City Of Sebastopol Water Production and Usage, and Wastewater Statistics for Annual Level of Service Report Calendar Year 2022.
https://www.cityofsebastopol.gov/resource_library/level-of-service-reports/ (accessed December 2023).
_____. 2023b. Water Supply Contingency Plan. https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/Sebastopol-Abridged-Water-Shortage-Contingency-Plan060623.pdf (accessed August 2023).

Sonoma Water. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.sonomawater.org/media/PDF/Water%20Resources/Water%20Supply/UWMP/ Sonoma%20Water%202020%20UWMP_June%202021-ADA.pdf (accessed November 2023). _____. 2021b. Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. https://santarosaplaingroundwater.org/wp-content/uploads/000_Santa_Rosa_GSP_508.pdf (accessed November 2023).

Less Than Significant Environmental Effects
California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland: 1984-2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ (accessed June 2023) _____. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed June 2023)
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-15
CalFire. 2007. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed June 2023) California Geological Survey. 2013. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials In The North San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, and Southwestern Solano Counties, California (accessed June 2023).

Department of Finance. 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1 2022 and 2023.
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed June 2023) Sebastopol, City of. 2016. Sebastopol General Plan.
https://ci.sebastopol.ca.us/getattachment/10408047-71e8-473e-b804- e51ed2e9b187/Adopted_GeneralPlan_11-15-16.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US&ext=.pdf (accessed June 2023).
_____. 2014. Existing Conditions Report.
http://sebastopol.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Sebastopol%20ECR_Final.pdf (accessed June 2023).

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Sebastopol, with the assistance of Rincon. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Matt Maddox, AICP, Principal
Katherine Green, AICP, Project Manager
Gianna Meschi, Assistant Project Manager
Antonia Davetas, Environmental Planner
Amber McEldowney, Environmental Planner
Nichole Yee, Environmental Planner
Leanna Flaherty, RPA, Archaeologist
Samantha Kehr, Senior Biologist
Aaron Rojas, Air Quality and GHG Specialist
Jesse McCandless, Noise Specialist
Josh Carman, INCE-USA, Director of Noise, Air Quality and GHG Savanna Vrevich, Environmental Scientist
Julie Lynne Welch, Director of Due Diligence
Debra Jane Seltzer, Formatting Specialist
Chris Jackson-Jordan, GIS Analyst
Hannah Newby, Senior GIS Analyst
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

City of Sebastopol
The Canopy
7-16
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix A
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Date: July 6, 2023
To: Responsible Agencies/Interested Parties
From: John Jay, Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The Canopy Residential Project -1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North The City of Sebastopol will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Conditional Use Permit, Standard Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map, and State Density Bonus Law Waiver for development of The Canopy Residential Project.

The 6.1-acre project site is located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North zoned Office/ Light Industrial (OLM) which permits residential density of 12.1-25 units per acres as a secondary use to office/light industrial uses. The project is proposed by City Ventures and would consist of the construction of 80 townhome style condominiums and up to 16 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The project description, and the potential environmental effects are discussed below, and the project site location is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 at the end of this notice.

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 1009-1011 Gravenstein Highway North, on the east side of Gravenstein Highway North southeast of its intersection with Mill Station Road, within the City of Sebastopol. The project site encompasses approximately 6.1 acres across two parcels. The project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 060-261-028 and 060-261-026 and is adjacent to the City of Sebastopol’s northwestern boundary. The project site is roughly bounded by a mix of Office buildings (O’Reilly Media Center) at 1003 Highway 116 North to the west, Gravenstein Highway North to the north, and primarily residential uses to the east and south.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would involve the construction of 80 solar all-electric, three-story townhome-style condominiums, with the potential for up to 16 ADA ADUs. The project would require the City’s approval of a conditional use permit for residential only within an Office Light Industrial zone, site development review, and vesting tentative tract map. In addition, the project applicant proposes the use of a State Density Bonus to allow for a waiver to increase the building height to three stories (6 ft above the max 30 ft height limit).

Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Canopy Residential Project

City of Sebastopol
Access to the proposed residential units will be taken in from the newly created access from highway 116 north and includes existing entrances on Mill Station Road and the existing Office and Media buildings. The project would include a total of 160 parking spaces in garages and 58 surface spaces across the site. The project would include construction of landscaped internal walkways throughout the site, including a new, enhanced 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway to connect the West County Trail to Gravenstein Highway along the northern border of the site; a bicycle repair station is proposed at the same location. The project would include 96 bicycle parking spaces, with 80 long-term spaces located in each residential garage and 16 spaces in onsite bicycle racks.

The proposed project would involve the removal of 21 trees (20 protected native trees including Oaks, Redwoods, Douglas Fir) while preserving the remaining 111 trees primarily along the perimeter of the site. An existing large, mature coast live oak tree would be retained at the northern primary entrance to the project entry. Proposed landscaping would include new plantings throughout the open spaces, along drive aisles, roadways, and streets, and surrounding the proposed buildings. Other amenities, including gardens, active and passive seating areas, children’s play areas, and a meditation hammock garden are also proposed.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Preliminary analysis indicates potential environmental effects related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

SCOPING MEETING
The City of Sebastopol, in its role as Lead Agency, will hold a public scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for the public and representatives of public agencies to provide input regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Report. The Scoping Meeting is scheduled for July 18th, 2023, 3:00 pm on Zoom and at the Sebastopol Community Center at 425 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA (Youth Annex Building). The link to the Zoom meeting is:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81841993599

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
This NOP is available for public review and comment pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15082(b). The 30-day public comment period during which the City of Sebastopol will receive comments on the NOP for the EIR begins July 6, 2023 and ends August 7, 2023.

Members of the public and public agencies are invited to provide comments in writing as to the scope and content of the EIR. The City needs to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Canopy Residential Project

City of Sebastopol
use the EIR prepared by the City when considering your permits or other approvals for the project.

Please send your comments to:

Planning Division
Attn: John Jay, Associate Planner
City of Sebastopol
7120 Bodega Avenue
Sebastopol, California, 95472
Or via email with “The Canopy Project NOP” as the subject to:
[email protected]
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Canopy Residential Project

City of Sebastopol
Figure 1 Regional Location
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Canopy Residential Project

City of Sebastopol
Figure 2 Project Site Location
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
1 / 121
The Canopy 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

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition - Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition - Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
2 / 121

3.3. Demolition - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Demolition - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Site Preparation- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated

3.6. Site Preparation- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated

3.7. Site Preparation - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Site Preparation - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Grading- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated

3.10. Grading- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated

3.11. Grading - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated

3.12. Grading - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated

3.13. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated

3.14. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated

3.15. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2025) - Unmitigated

3.16. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2025) - Mitigated

3.17. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.18. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated

3.19. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
3 / 121

3.20. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated

3.21. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.22. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2026) - Mitigated

3.23. Paving- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.24. Paving- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated

3.25. Paving - Phase 2 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.26. Paving - Phase 2 (2026) - Mitigated

3.27. Paving - Phase 2 (2027) - Unmitigated

3.28. Paving - Phase 2 (2027) - Mitigated

3.29. Architectural Coating- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated

3.30. Architectural Coating- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated

3.31. Architectural Coating - Phase 2 (2027) - Unmitigated

3.32. Architectural Coating - Phase 2 (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
4 / 121

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
5 / 121

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
6 / 121

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
7 / 121

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
8 / 121

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
9 / 121

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
10 / 121

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name The Canopy
Construction Start Date 6/1/2024
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 35.8
Location 1009 Gravenstein Hwy N, Sebastopol, CA 95472, USA County Sonoma-San Francisco
City Sebastopol
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 996
EDFZ 2
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.19

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
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
11 / 121
Condo/Townhouse
High Rise

80.0 Dwelling Unit 4.58 76,800 0.00 0.00 205 —
Parking Lot 58.0 Space 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Apartments Low
Rise

16.0 Dwelling Unit 1.00 4,800 0.00 0.00 41.0 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-2* Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
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. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 6.66 27.1 30.5 0.06 1.14 8.97 10.1 1.05 3.74 4.77 — 6,815 6,815 0.29 0.17 6.53 6,876 Mit. 6.28 4.39 35.6 0.06 0.14 4.00 4.14 0.13 1.58 1.71 — 6,815 6,815 0.29 0.17 6.53 6,876 %
Reduced
6% 84% -17% — 88% 55% 59% 87% 58% 64% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
12 / 121
Unmit. 5.83 13.4 20.6 0.03 0.55 1.29 1.74 0.50 0.31 0.72 — 4,351 4,351 0.17 0.15 0.17 4,400 Mit. 5.81 3.77 23.1 0.03 0.09 1.29 1.38 0.09 0.31 0.39 — 4,351 4,351 0.17 0.15 0.17 4,400 %
Reduced
< 0.5% 72% -12% — 84% — 21% 83% — 46% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.89 13.3 17.6 0.03 0.52 2.53 3.05 0.48 0.91 1.39 — 4,244 4,244 0.19 0.13 2.23 4,290 Mit. 1.31 3.17 20.9 0.03 0.08 1.59 1.68 0.08 0.50 0.58 — 4,244 4,244 0.19 0.13 2.23 4,290 %
Reduced
31% 76% -18% — 84% 37% 45% 83% 45% 58% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.34 2.42 3.22 0.01 0.09 0.46 0.56 0.09 0.17 0.25 — 703 703 0.03 0.02 0.37 710 Mit. 0.24 0.58 3.81 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 703 703 0.03 0.02 0.37 710 %
Reduced
31% 76% -18% — 84% 37% 45% 83% 45% 58% — — — — — — —

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 2.55 24.4 22.7 0.04 1.07 8.35 9.38 0.99 3.59 4.55 — 4,698 4,698 0.20 0.11 3.47 4,737 2025 3.17 27.1 30.5 0.06 1.14 8.97 10.1 1.05 3.74 4.77 — 6,815 6,815 0.29 0.17 6.53 6,876 2026 6.66 13.3 21.1 0.03 0.55 0.87 1.31 0.50 0.21 0.68 — 4,059 4,059 0.15 0.09 3.94 4,094 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.88 6.48 9.18 0.01 0.25 0.64 0.90 0.23 0.15 0.39 — 2,190 2,190 0.10 0.08 0.09 2,216 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
13 / 121
2025 1.67 12.0 17.8 0.03 0.45 1.29 1.74 0.42 0.31 0.72 — 4,351 4,351 0.17 0.15 0.17 4,400 2026 1.79 13.4 20.6 0.03 0.55 1.29 1.70 0.50 0.31 0.68 — 4,320 4,320 0.16 0.15 0.16 4,370 2027 5.83 7.34 11.9 0.02 0.31 0.23 0.43 0.28 0.05 0.31 — 1,848 1,848 0.07 0.02 0.02 1,856 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.74 6.69 6.99 0.01 0.28 1.81 2.09 0.26 0.75 1.00 — 1,543 1,543 0.07 0.04 0.49 1,556 2025 1.72 13.3 17.6 0.03 0.52 2.53 3.05 0.48 0.91 1.39 — 4,244 4,244 0.19 0.13 2.23 4,290 2026 1.89 8.31 12.8 0.02 0.32 0.78 1.09 0.29 0.19 0.47 — 2,958 2,958 0.11 0.09 1.60 2,991 2027 0.75 0.42 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 131 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.14 1.22 1.28 < 0.005 0.05 0.33 0.38 0.05 0.14 0.18 — 255 255 0.01 0.01 0.08 258 2025 0.31 2.42 3.22 0.01 0.09 0.46 0.56 0.09 0.17 0.25 — 703 703 0.03 0.02 0.37 710 2026 0.34 1.52 2.34 < 0.005 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.05 0.03 0.09 — 490 490 0.02 0.02 0.26 495 2027 0.14 0.08 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.6 21.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 21.7

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.50 2.92 24.7 0.04 0.09 3.38 3.47 0.09 1.43 1.52 — 4,698 4,698 0.20 0.11 3.47 4,737 2025 0.95 4.39 35.6 0.06 0.14 4.00 4.14 0.13 1.58 1.71 — 6,815 6,815 0.29 0.17 6.53 6,876 2026 6.28 3.67 23.5 0.03 0.08 0.87 0.94 0.07 0.21 0.27 — 4,059 4,059 0.15 0.09 3.94 4,094 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.47 1.76 10.8 0.01 0.04 0.64 0.69 0.04 0.15 0.20 — 2,190 2,190 0.10 0.08 0.09 2,216 2025 0.91 3.43 21.2 0.03 0.09 1.29 1.38 0.09 0.31 0.39 — 4,351 4,351 0.17 0.15 0.17 4,400 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
14 / 121
2026 0.88 3.77 23.1 0.03 0.09 1.29 1.38 0.08 0.31 0.39 — 4,320 4,320 0.16 0.15 0.16 4,370 2027 5.81 2.09 12.7 0.02 0.03 0.23 0.25 0.03 0.05 0.07 — 1,848 1,848 0.07 0.02 0.02 1,856 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.22 1.09 7.84 0.01 0.03 0.83 0.86 0.03 0.32 0.35 — 1,543 1,543 0.07 0.04 0.49 1,556 2025 0.78 3.17 20.9 0.03 0.08 1.59 1.68 0.08 0.50 0.58 — 4,244 4,244 0.19 0.13 2.23 4,290 2026 1.31 2.58 15.0 0.02 0.06 0.78 0.84 0.06 0.19 0.24 — 2,958 2,958 0.11 0.09 1.60 2,991 2027 0.73 0.29 0.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 131 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.04 0.20 1.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 255 255 0.01 0.01 0.08 258 2025 0.14 0.58 3.81 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 703 703 0.03 0.02 0.37 710 2026 0.24 0.47 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 490 490 0.02 0.02 0.26 495 2027 0.13 0.05 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.6 21.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 21.7

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.17 2.40 25.3 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,932 4,976 4.71 0.24 16.5 5,183 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.57 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,697 4,742 4.74 0.26 1.00 4,939 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.77 2.58 21.3 0.04 0.04 3.85 3.89 0.04 0.98 1.02 44.2 4,728 4,772 4.72 0.25 7.47 4,973 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
15 / 121
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Unmit. 0.87 0.47 3.89 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 7.32 783 790 0.78 0.04 1.24 823

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.80 2.34 19.9 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,536 4,536 0.21 0.22 15.9 4,623 Area 2.37 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Total 5.17 2.40 25.3 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,932 4,976 4.71 0.24 16.5 5,183 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.68 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,316 4,316 0.24 0.24 0.41 4,393 Area 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Total 4.57 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,697 4,742 4.74 0.26 1.00 4,939 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
16 / 121
Mobile 2.65 2.56 18.6 0.04 0.04 3.85 3.89 0.04 0.98 1.02 — 4,339 4,339 0.23 0.23 6.89 4,421 Area 2.13 0.03 2.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.18 7.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.21 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Total 4.77 2.58 21.3 0.04 0.04 3.85 3.89 0.04 0.98 1.02 44.2 4,728 4,772 4.72 0.25 7.47 4,973 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.48 0.47 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 — 718 718 0.04 0.04 1.14 732 Area 0.39 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 61.9 61.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 62.5 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 1.28 2.26 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.50 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total 0.87 0.47 3.89 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 7.32 783 790 0.78 0.04 1.24 823

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.80 2.34 19.9 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,536 4,536 0.21 0.22 15.9 4,623 Area 2.37 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
17 / 121
Total 5.17 2.40 25.3 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,932 4,976 4.71 0.24 16.5 5,183 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.68 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,316 4,316 0.24 0.24 0.41 4,393 Area 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Total 4.57 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 44.2 4,697 4,742 4.74 0.26 1.00 4,939 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.65 2.56 18.6 0.04 0.04 3.85 3.89 0.04 0.98 1.02 — 4,339 4,339 0.23 0.23 6.89 4,421 Area 2.13 0.03 2.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.18 7.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.21 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378 Water — — — — — — — — — — 5.93 7.70 13.6 0.61 0.01 — 33.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.58 0.58
Total 4.77 2.58 21.3 0.04 0.04 3.85 3.89 0.04 0.98 1.02 44.2 4,728 4,772 4.72 0.25 7.47 4,973 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.48 0.47 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 — 718 718 0.04 0.04 1.14 732 Area 0.39 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 61.9 61.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 62.5 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.98 1.28 2.26 0.10 < 0.005 — 5.50 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.10
Total 0.87 0.47 3.89 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 7.32 783 790 0.78 0.04 1.24 823 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
18 / 121

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition - Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 1.93 2.70 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.25 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.8 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.57 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
19 / 121
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 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44.4 44.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 45.2 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.2. Demolition - Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
20 / 121
Off-Road 0.05 0.83 3.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Equipment
Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.11 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 57.6 57.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 57.8 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.54 9.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.57 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 44.4 44.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 45.2 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 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
21 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Demolition - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.83 2.68 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.83 2.68 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
22 / 121
Demolitio — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.23 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.14 9.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.17 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.6 43.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 44.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 41.1 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 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
23 / 121
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.16 5.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Demolition - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.83 3.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.83 3.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 438 438 0.02 < 0.005 — 440 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
24 / 121
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 truck
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.11 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 55.2 55.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.14 9.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.17 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.6 43.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 44.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 41.1 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
25 / 121
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.16 5.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 0.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.87 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Site Preparation- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.50 24.4 22.0 0.04 1.07 — 1.07 0.99 — 0.99 — 4,421 4,421 0.18 0.04 — 4,436 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 8.14 8.14 — 3.54 3.54 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.16 1.60 1.45 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 291 291 0.01 < 0.005 — 292 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
26 / 121
Dust — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.23 0.23 — — — — — — —
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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.29 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 113 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.85 6.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.96 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.13 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
27 / 121
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Site Preparation- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 2.17 24.1 0.04 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 4,421 4,421 0.18 0.04 — 4,436 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.18 3.18 — 1.38 1.38 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.14 1.58 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 291 291 0.01 < 0.005 — 292 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.03 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 48.1 48.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 48.3 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
28 / 121
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 113 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.85 6.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.96 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.13 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Site Preparation - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
29 / 121
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

2.27 21.2 20.6 0.04 0.92— 0.92 0.85— 0.85— 4,421 4,421 0.18 0.04— 4,437 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 8.14 8.14— 3.54 3.54———————
Onsite
truck

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

0.14 1.33 1.30 < 0.005 0.06— 0.06 0.05— 0.05— 279 279 0.01 < 0.005— 280 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.51 0.51— 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 Annual—————————————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 46.1 46.1 < 0.005 < 0.005— 46.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
————— 0.09 0.09— 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 Offsite—————————————————
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
30 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 111 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.45 6.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Site Preparation - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 2.17 24.1 0.04 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 4,421 4,421 0.18 0.04 — 4,437 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
31 / 121
Dust — — — — — 3.18 3.18 — 1.38 1.38 — — — — — — —
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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.14 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 279 279 0.01 < 0.005 — 280 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 46.1 46.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 46.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 111 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
32 / 121
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.45 6.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.07 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.08 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Grading- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.41 23.4 20.3 0.04 1.03 — 1.03 0.95 — 0.95 — 4,165 4,165 0.17 0.03 — 4,179 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 8.15 8.15 — 3.54 3.54 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
33 / 121
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.32 3.08 2.67 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.12 — 0.12 — 548 548 0.02 < 0.005 — 550 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.07 1.07 — 0.47 0.47 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.56 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 90.7 90.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.20 0.20 — 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 113 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.60 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 423 423 0.03 0.07 0.86 445 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.9 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
34 / 121
Hauling < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6 55.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 58.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.27 2.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.21 9.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.68

3.10. Grading- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 2.28 22.2 0.04 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 4,165 4,165 0.17 0.03 — 4,179 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.18 3.18 — 1.38 1.38 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.06 0.30 2.92 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 548 548 0.02 < 0.005 — 550 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.42 0.42 — 0.18 0.18 — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
35 / 121
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 90.7 90.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 91.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.08 0.08 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 0.49 113 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.60 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 423 423 0.03 0.07 0.86 445 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.9 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.6 55.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 58.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.27 2.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.21 9.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.68 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
36 / 121

3.11. Grading - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.20 20.3 18.9 0.04 0.89 — 0.89 0.82 — 0.82 — 4,165 4,165 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 8.14 8.14 — 3.54 3.54 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.28 2.56 2.39 < 0.005 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 525 525 0.02 < 0.005 — 527 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.45 0.45 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.47 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 86.9 86.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 87.2 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
37 / 121
Dust — — — — — 0.19 0.19 — 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 111 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.45 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 324 324 0.02 0.05 0.66 341 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.1 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.9 40.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 2.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.77 6.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.11

3.12. Grading - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
38 / 121
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.42 2.28 22.2 0.04 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 4,165 4,165 0.17 0.03 — 4,180 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 3.18 3.18 — 1.38 1.38 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.29 2.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 525 525 0.02 < 0.005 — 527 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.40 0.40 — 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 86.9 86.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 87.2 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
39 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 0.46 111 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.45 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 324 324 0.02 0.05 0.66 341 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.9 12.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.1 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 Hauling < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.9 40.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.13 2.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.77 6.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.11

3.13. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 5.76 5.80 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
40 / 121
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.59 5.76 5.80 0.01 0.25 — 0.25 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.15 1.48 1.49 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 342 342 0.01 < 0.005 — 344 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.27 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 56.7 56.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.9 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.23 3.63 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 614 614 0.03 0.02 2.73 624 Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 289 289 0.01 0.04 0.74 303 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.30 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 572 572 0.04 0.02 0.07 580 Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 289 289 0.01 0.04 0.02 302 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
41 / 121
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 148 148 0.01 0.01 0.30 151 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 74.4 74.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 77.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.6 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2024) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.27 1.92 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 342 342 0.01 < 0.005 — 344 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
42 / 121
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 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 56.7 56.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 56.9 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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.23 3.63 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 614 614 0.03 0.02 2.73 624 Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 289 289 0.01 0.04 0.74 303 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.30 3.21 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 572 572 0.04 0.02 0.07 580 Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 289 289 0.01 0.04 0.02 302 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 148 148 0.01 0.01 0.30 151 Vendor < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 74.4 74.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 77.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 24.6 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 25.0 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 12.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
43 / 121

3.15. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.56 5.32 5.76 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.56 5.32 5.76 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.56 5.32 5.76 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.10 0.97 1.05 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 220 220 0.01 < 0.005 — 221 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
44 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.28 0.21 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 602 602 0.03 0.02 2.53 613 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.73 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.28 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 561 561 0.02 0.02 0.07 569 Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.02 297 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.25 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 566 566 0.03 0.02 1.09 575 Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.32 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.6 93.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 95.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.1 47.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 49.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
45 / 121
Off-Road 0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01— 1,334 Equipment
Onsite
truck

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

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01— 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04— 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01— 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.19 1.36 < 0.005 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01— 220 220 0.01 < 0.005— 221 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.28 0.21 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13— 602 602 0.03 0.02 2.53 613 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02— 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.73 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.27 0.28 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13— 561 561 0.02 0.02 0.07 569 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
46 / 121
Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.02 297 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.25 2.91 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 566 566 0.03 0.02 1.09 575 Vendor 0.01 0.39 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.32 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 93.6 93.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.18 95.1 Vendor < 0.005 0.07 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.1 47.1 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 49.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 5.01 5.72 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.13 1.19 1.36 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 — 318 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
47 / 121
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.22 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.26 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 551 551 0.02 0.02 0.06 559 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.02 292 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 134 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 66.7 66.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 69.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.18. Building Construction- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
48 / 121
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.25 1.77 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 317 317 0.01 < 0.005 — 318 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.05 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 52.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.26 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 551 551 0.02 0.02 0.06 559 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.02 292 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
49 / 121
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 132 132 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 134 Vendor < 0.005 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — 66.7 66.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 69.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21.9 21.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.0 11.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.19. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.56 5.32 5.76 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.56 5.32 5.76 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
50 / 121
Off-Road 0.29 2.78 3.02 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 696 696 0.03 0.01 — 698 Equipment
Onsite
truck

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

0.05 0.51 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 116 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.21 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 602 602 0.03 0.02 2.53 613 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.73 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.28 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 561 561 0.02 0.02 0.07 569 Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.02 297 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.02 0.01 0.57 301 Vendor < 0.005 0.21 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 149 149 0.01 0.02 0.17 156 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 49.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.7 24.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 25.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
51 / 121

3.20. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.55 3.89 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 696 696 0.03 0.01 — 698 Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.10 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 116 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
52 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.28 0.21 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 602 602 0.03 0.02 2.53 613 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.73 298 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.28 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 561 561 0.02 0.02 0.07 569 Vendor 0.01 0.40 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 285 285 0.01 0.04 0.02 297 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 296 296 0.02 0.01 0.57 301 Vendor < 0.005 0.21 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 149 149 0.01 0.02 0.17 156 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 49.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.7 24.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 25.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.21. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
53 / 121
Off-Road 0.54 5.01 5.72 0.01 0.20— 0.20 0.19— 0.19— 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01— 1,334 Equipment
Onsite
truck

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

0.54 5.01 5.72 0.01 0.20— 0.20 0.19— 0.19— 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01— 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.49 4.57 5.21 0.01 0.18— 0.18 0.17— 0.17— 1,213 1,213 0.05 0.01— 1,217 Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.83 0.95 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03— 201 201 0.01 < 0.005— 201 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.27 0.19 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13— 591 591 0.01 0.02 2.33 601 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02— 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.68 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—————————————————
Worker 0.26 0.26 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13— 551 551 0.02 0.02 0.06 559 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
54 / 121
Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.02 292 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 507 507 0.01 0.02 0.92 514 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.01 0.04 0.27 267 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.9 83.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 85.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.22. Building Construction - Phase 2 (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 Onsite
truck

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

0.18 1.04 7.44 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,329 1,329 0.05 0.01 — 1,334 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
55 / 121
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.95 6.78 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,213 1,213 0.05 0.01 — 1,217 Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.17 1.24 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 201 201 0.01 < 0.005 — 201 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.19 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 591 591 0.01 0.02 2.33 601 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.68 293 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.26 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 551 551 0.02 0.02 0.06 559 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 280 280 0.01 0.04 0.02 292 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.12 0.12 — 507 507 0.01 0.02 0.92 514 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.01 0.04 0.27 267 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 83.9 83.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 85.2 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
56 / 121
Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.3 42.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 44.2 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.23. Paving- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 7.68 11.3 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.91 7.68 11.3 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.12 0.99 1.46 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 223 223 0.01 < 0.005 — 224 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
57 / 121
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.18 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.9 36.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.0 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.24. Paving- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
58 / 121
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 2.04 12.1 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.18 2.04 12.1 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Paving 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.26 1.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 223 223 0.01 < 0.005 — 224 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 36.9 36.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.0 Paving < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
59 / 121
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 128 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 130 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.5 15.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.57 2.57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.25. Paving - Phase 2 (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
60 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 7.68 11.3 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Onsite
truck

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

0.08 0.67 1.00 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25.1 25.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
61 / 121
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.75 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.26. Paving - Phase 2 (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 2.04 12.1 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,730 1,730 0.07 0.01 — 1,736 Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.18 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 152 152 0.01 < 0.005 — 152 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25.1 25.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
62 / 121
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 120 120 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 121 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.6 10.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.75 1.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.78 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.27. Paving - Phase 2 (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.87 7.29 11.4 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,731 1,731 0.07 0.01 — 1,737 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
63 / 121
Onsite
truck

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

0.03 0.26 0.41 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 119 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
64 / 121

3.28. Paving - Phase 2 (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.18 2.04 12.1 0.02 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 1,731 1,731 0.07 0.01 — 1,737 Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.07 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 61.6 61.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
65 / 121
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 117 117 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 119 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.22 4.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.71 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.29. Architectural Coating- Phase 1 (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 1.25 1.82 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
66 / 121
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.16 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38.8 38.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.9 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.44 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.08 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 236 236 < 0.005 0.01 0.93 240 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
67 / 121
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.74 4.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.81 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.30. Architectural Coating- Phase 1 (2026) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.68 2.04 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.22 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 38.8 38.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.9 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.72 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
68 / 121
Off-Road < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.42 6.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.44 Equipment
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.08 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 236 236 < 0.005 0.01 0.93 240 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 29.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.74 4.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.81 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 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.31. Architectural Coating - Phase 2 (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
69 / 121
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 1.23 1.82 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.15 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 37.1 37.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.15 6.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.17 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
70 / 121
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 219 219 0.01 0.01 0.02 222 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 4.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.58 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.32. Architectural Coating - Phase 2 (2027) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.68 2.04 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 301 301 0.01 < 0.005 — 302 Architectu
ral
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
71 / 121
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.21 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 37.1 37.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 37.3 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.69 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.15 6.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.17 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 1.06 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 219 219 0.01 0.01 0.02 222 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 27.7 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 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
72 / 121
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 4.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.58 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

2.36 1.97 16.7 0.04 0.03 3.32 3.35 0.03 0.84 0.88 — 3,819 3,819 0.18 0.19 13.4 3,892 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.44 0.37 3.14 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.16 — 717 717 0.03 0.03 2.52 731 Total 2.80 2.34 19.9 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,536 4,536 0.21 0.22 15.9 4,623 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

2.25 2.27 16.4 0.04 0.03 3.32 3.35 0.03 0.84 0.88 — 3,633 3,633 0.20 0.20 0.35 3,699 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
73 / 121
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lot
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.42 0.43 3.07 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.16 — 682 682 0.04 0.04 0.07 695 Total 2.68 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,316 4,316 0.24 0.24 0.41 4,393 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

0.41 0.39 2.86 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.16 — 605 605 0.03 0.03 0.96 616 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.08 0.07 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 0.01 0.18 116 Total 0.48 0.47 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 — 718 718 0.04 0.04 1.14 732

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

2.36 1.97 16.7 0.04 0.03 3.32 3.35 0.03 0.84 0.88 — 3,819 3,819 0.18 0.19 13.4 3,892 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.44 0.37 3.14 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.16 — 717 717 0.03 0.03 2.52 731 Total 2.80 2.34 19.9 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,536 4,536 0.21 0.22 15.9 4,623 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
74 / 121
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

2.25 2.27 16.4 0.04 0.03 3.32 3.35 0.03 0.84 0.88 — 3,633 3,633 0.20 0.20 0.35 3,699 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.42 0.43 3.07 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.16 — 682 682 0.04 0.04 0.07 695 Total 2.68 2.69 19.4 0.04 0.04 3.94 3.98 0.04 1.00 1.04 — 4,316 4,316 0.24 0.24 0.41 4,393 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

0.41 0.39 2.86 0.01 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.01 0.15 0.16 — 605 605 0.03 0.03 0.96 616 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.08 0.07 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 0.01 0.01 0.18 116 Total 0.48 0.47 3.40 0.01 0.01 0.70 0.71 0.01 0.18 0.19 — 718 718 0.04 0.04 1.14 732

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 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
75 / 121
Condo/To — — — — — — — — — — — 290 290 0.05 0.01 — 293
wnhouse
High Rise
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 72.9 72.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 73.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 290 290 0.05 0.01 — 293
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 72.9 72.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 73.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.0 48.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 48.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.86
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.2
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 61.9 61.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 62.5

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) Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
76 / 121
Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 290 290 0.05 0.01 — 293
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 72.9 72.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 73.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 290 290 0.05 0.01 — 293
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 72.9 72.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 73.6
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 374 374 0.06 0.01 — 378
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 48.0 48.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 48.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.84 1.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.86
Apartmen
ts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.2
Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
77 / 121
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 61.9 61.9 0.01 < 0.005 — 62.5

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
78 / 121
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

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

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024

The Canopy Detailed Report, 9/20/2023
79 / 121
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Condo/To
wnhouse
High Rise

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Apartmen
ts
Low Rise

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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

1.75 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.48 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Total 2.37 0.05 5.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Agenda Item Number 3 Agenda Item 3 Number
City Council Meeting Packet of April 2nd, 2024