Agenda packet — Suisun City City Council, July 15, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

Timing/Implementation: During Construction

Monitoring/Enforcement: Suisun City Development Services Department Operational Onsite Noise:

The Project is proposing the construction of 96 affordable apartment units, and associated features. The main noise source generated from the proposed residences on the Project Site would include mechanical equipment and other typical sources specific to residential land uses, such as barking dogs, int ernal traffic circulation, power tools and landscaping equipment, radios, and people talking. According to previous field noise measurements conducted by ECORP, mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment generates noise levels less than 45 dBA at 20 feet. Additionally, previous field measurements at six different residential neighborhoods, including two multi -family neighborhoods, two single -family neighborhoods, and two mixed density neighborhoods provide a daytime average of 51.9 dBA. The Project proposes to place residential uses adjacent to other residential uses. The most basic planning strategy to minimize adverse impacts on new land uses due to noise is to avoid designating certain land uses at locations within the community that would negatively affect noise sensitive land uses. The Project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use existing in the Project Area, and as previously described, the Project is considered compatible with the exi sting noise environment. It is noted that the recorded average noise level as a result of residential land uses ( 51.9 dBA) would be lower than those currently experienced in the Project Area (see Table 3-1) and therefore would not substantially contribute to the existing ambient noise environment.
329
Noise Impact Assessment for the Almond Gardens Apartments Project ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments Project 18 August 2024
2024-182

6.0 REFERENCES
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2020. IS/EA Annotated Outline. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec4/ch31ea/chap31ea.htm. _____. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. _____. 2002. California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook CFR Part 51 Subpart B. 2013. Noise Abatement and Control.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2017. Construction Noise Handbook. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook02.cfm . _____. 2011. Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction. Available online at:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm. _____. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

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

Harris Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual.

Office of Planning and Research. 2003. State of California General Plan Guidelines.

Suisun City. 2015. Suisun City General Plan.

Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. 2021. Sound Transmission Sound Test Laboratory Report No. TL 21-227.

330

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Baseline (Existing) Noise Measurements – Project Site and Vicinity Attachment B- Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Outputs –Traffic Noise Attachment C- Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs – Project Construction

331

ATTACHMENT A
Baseline (Existing) Noise Measurements – Project Site and Vicinity

332
333
Site Number: ST 1
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2024-182
Date: 8/20/2024
Time: 9:54 a.m. – 10:09 a.m.

Location: On Mulberry Street adjacent to Crystal Middle School Source of Peak Noise: School activity and cars on Mulberry Street Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

56.6 48.9 83.1 96.2

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note

Sound

Sound Level Meter Larson Davis Spartan 821 30100 05/22/2024 Microphone Larson Davis 377B02 352537 04/12/2024
Preamp Larson Davis PRM821 001679 04/26/2024
Calibrator Larson Davis CAL200 226638 05/20/2024
Weather Data

Est.

Duration: 15 mins Sky: clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0:00 Sensor Height (ft): 4
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 7 72 30.05

Photo of Measurement Location

334
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2024-08-21 15:58:59
User:

Location:

Job Description:

Notes:

Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40159
Preamp PRM821
Microphone 377B02
Unique File Id 00C:00009CDF:66C467F1:00000C73
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2024-08-20 09:54:57
Stop Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:09:57
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) -0.02 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 09:52:31 Pre-Sensitivity -25.70 dB re 1V/Pa
Post-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) 0.06 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 11:13:36 Post-Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa
LAIeq 60.6 dB
A C Z
Lweq 56.6 74.1 79.3
Lwpk 96.2 dB 108.5 dB 110.4 dB
2024-08-20 09:59:44 2024-08-20 10:07:08 2024-08-20 10:07:08 LwSmin 48.0 dB 61.6 dB 66.1 dB
2024-08-20 10:04:37 2024-08-20 09:55:32 2024-08-20 10:05:05 LwSmax 77.9 dB 96.6 dB 97.9 dB
2024-08-20 10:07:09 2024-08-20 10:07:07 2024-08-20 10:07:07 LwFmin 47.1 dB 59.3 dB 63.1 dB
2024-08-20 10:04:34 2024-08-20 10:04:46 2024-08-20 10:09:35 LwFmax 80.8 dB 100.3 dB 101.7 dB
2024-08-20 10:07:08 2024-08-20 10:07:08 2024-08-20 10:07:08 LwImin 48.9 dB 63.4 dB 69.4 dB
2024-08-20 10:04:36 2024-08-20 09:55:32 2024-08-20 09:58:27 LwImax 83.1 dB 103.3 dB 104.7 dB
2024-08-20 10:07:08 2024-08-20 10:07:08 2024-08-20 10:07:08 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

56.6 dB 56.6 dB --- dB
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

56.6 dB 56.6 dB --- dB --- dB
LCeq - LAeq 17.5 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB
Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 59.8 dB
LAS 10.0 56.6 dB
LAS 33.3 51.6 dB
LAS 50.0 50.5 dB
LAS 66.6 49.8 dB
LAS 90.0 49.1 dB
Exceedances
Count Duration
LZS > 85 dB 13 37
LZS > 95 dB 1 4
LZpk > 135 dB 0 0
LZpk > 137 dB 0 0
LZpk > 140 dB 0 0
335
Sound Exposure
SEL Z 108.9 dB
EZ (Pa²s) 30.9 Pa²s
EZ,8 h (Pa²s) 989.5 Pa²s
EZ,40 h (Pa²s) 4947.3 Pa²s
EZ (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,8 h (Pa²h) 0.3 Pa²h
EZ,40 h (Pa²h) 1.4 Pa²h
Powered by Larson Davis
336

Site Number: ST 2
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2024-182
Date: 8/20/2024
Time: 10:14 a.m. – 10:29 a.m.

Location: On 727 Harbor Park Drive
Source of Peak Noise: Train noise in distance and vehicle traffic Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

48.6 37.5 81.0 92.7

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note

Sound

Est.

Duration: 15 mins Sky: clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0:00 Sensor Height (ft): 4
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 7 72 30.05

Photo of Measurement Location

337
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2024-08-21 15:59:58
User:

Location:

Job Description:

Notes:

Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40159
Preamp PRM821
Microphone 377B02
Unique File Id 00C:00009CDF:66C46CA1:00000C77
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:14:57
Stop Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:29:57
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) -0.02 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 09:52:31 Pre-Sensitivity -25.70 dB re 1V/Pa
Post-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) 0.06 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 11:13:36 Post-Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa
LAIeq 55.9 dB
A C Z
Lweq 48.6 61.6 72.5
Lwpk 92.7 dB 93.9 dB 94.9 dB
2024-08-20 10:17:37 2024-08-20 10:23:14 2024-08-20 10:27:36 LwSmin 36.6 dB 52.1 dB 57.5 dB
2024-08-20 10:15:26 2024-08-20 10:25:44 2024-08-20 10:26:50 LwSmax 74.3 dB 86.4 dB 86.8 dB
2024-08-20 10:14:57 2024-08-20 10:14:57 2024-08-20 10:27:25 LwFmin 35.7 dB 49.9 dB 54.6 dB
2024-08-20 10:15:19 2024-08-20 10:28:46 2024-08-20 10:28:46 LwFmax 70.8 dB 85.7 dB 91.6 dB
2024-08-20 10:23:14 2024-08-20 10:23:14 2024-08-20 10:27:24 LwImin 37.5 dB 54.7 dB 60.8 dB
2024-08-20 10:29:17 2024-08-20 10:25:26 2024-08-20 10:26:51 LwImax 81.0 dB 92.8 dB 93.8 dB
2024-08-20 10:14:57 2024-08-20 10:14:57 2024-08-20 10:27:24 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

48.6 dB 48.6 dB --- dB
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

48.6 dB 48.6 dB --- dB --- dB
LCeq - LAeq 13.0 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB
Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 52.3 dB
LAS 10.0 49.1 dB
LAS 33.3 43.2 dB
LAS 50.0 41.8 dB
LAS 66.6 40.5 dB
LAS 90.0 38.6 dB
Exceedances
Count Duration
LZS > 85 dB 3 4
LZS > 95 dB 0 0
LZpk > 135 dB 0 0
LZpk > 137 dB 0 0
LZpk > 140 dB 0 0
338
Sound Exposure
SEL Z 102.0 dB
EZ (Pa²s) 6.4 Pa²s
EZ,8 h (Pa²s) 205.1 Pa²s
EZ,40 h (Pa²s) 1025.7 Pa²s
EZ (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,8 h (Pa²h) 0.1 Pa²h
EZ,40 h (Pa²h) 0.3 Pa²h
Powered by Larson Davis
339

Site Number: ST 3
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2024-182
Date: 8/20/2024
Time: 10:34 a.m. – 10:49 a.m.

Location: In Mike Day Memorial Park adjacent to play structure Source of Peak Noise: Vehicle noise on adjacent roadways Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

52.4 43.3 71.4 86.3

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note

Sound

Est.

Duration: 15 mins Sky: clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0:00 Sensor Height (ft): 4
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 7 72 30.05

Photo of Measurement Location

340
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2024-08-21 16:00:26
User:

Location:

Job Description:

Notes:

Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40159
Preamp PRM821
Microphone 377B02
Unique File Id 00C:00009CDF:66C47134:00000C7B
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:34:28
Stop Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:49:28
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) -0.02 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 09:52:31 Pre-Sensitivity -25.70 dB re 1V/Pa
Post-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) 0.06 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 11:13:36 Post-Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa
LAIeq 57.0 dB
A C Z
Lweq 52.4 63.7 78.8
Lwpk 86.3 dB 86.3 dB 101.5 dB
2024-08-20 10:35:03 2024-08-20 10:35:03 2024-08-20 10:45:30 LwSmin 42.6 dB 57.6 dB 64.3 dB
2024-08-20 10:38:43 2024-08-20 10:34:31 2024-08-20 10:45:25 LwSmax 68.2 dB 77.3 dB 92.6 dB
2024-08-20 10:47:30 2024-08-20 10:43:50 2024-08-20 10:45:31 LwFmin 42.0 dB 55.5 dB 60.2 dB
2024-08-20 10:39:11 2024-08-20 10:35:25 2024-08-20 10:34:30 LwFmax 70.2 dB 79.0 dB 97.3 dB
2024-08-20 10:47:30 2024-08-20 10:43:49 2024-08-20 10:45:30 LwImin 43.3 dB 60.0 dB 67.0 dB
2024-08-20 10:38:42 2024-08-20 10:38:44 2024-08-20 10:37:57 LwImax 71.4 dB 80.5 dB 100.0 dB
2024-08-20 10:40:24 2024-08-20 10:43:49 2024-08-20 10:45:30 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

52.4 dB 52.4 dB --- dB
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

52.4 dB 52.4 dB --- dB --- dB
LCeq - LAeq 11.3 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB
Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 57.5 dB
LAS 10.0 55.2 dB
LAS 33.3 50.3 dB
LAS 50.0 48.4 dB
LAS 66.6 47.1 dB
LAS 90.0 44.8 dB
Exceedances
Count Duration
LZS > 85 dB 14 41
LZS > 95 dB 0 0
LZpk > 135 dB 0 0
LZpk > 137 dB 0 0
LZpk > 140 dB 0 0
341
Sound Exposure
SEL Z 108.4 dB
EZ (Pa²s) 27.5 Pa²s
EZ,8 h (Pa²s) 879.0 Pa²s
EZ,40 h (Pa²s) 4394.9 Pa²s
EZ (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,8 h (Pa²h) 0.2 Pa²h
EZ,40 h (Pa²h) 1.2 Pa²h
Powered by Larson Davis
342

Site Number: ST 4
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2024-182
Date: 8/20/2024
Time: 10:54 a.m. – 11:09 a.m.

Location: Intersection of Josiah Circle and Driftwood Drive, adjacent to bus stop Source of Peak Noise: Vehicle noise on adjacent roadways, activity at bus stop Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

55.2 39.9 92.8 97.4

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note

Sound

Est.

Duration: 15 mins Sky: clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0:00 Sensor Height (ft): 4
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 7 72 30.05

Photo of Measurement Location
343
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2024-08-21 16:01:08
User:

Location:

Job Description:

Notes:

Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40159
Preamp PRM821
Microphone 377B02
Unique File Id 00C:00009CDF:66C475C8:00000C7F
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2024-08-20 10:54:00
Stop Date & Time 2024-08-20 11:09:00
Run Time 00:15:00
Pre-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) -0.02 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 09:52:31 Pre-Sensitivity -25.70 dB re 1V/Pa
Post-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) 0.06 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 11:13:36 Post-Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa
LAIeq 66.2 dB
A C Z
Lweq 55.2 61.2 68.4
Lwpk 97.4 dB 99.0 dB 99.8 dB
2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 LwSmin 38.9 dB 53.4 dB 58.3 dB
2024-08-20 11:05:18 2024-08-20 11:03:40 2024-08-20 11:03:24 LwSmax 84.8 dB 86.3 dB 86.7 dB
2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 LwFmin 38.1 dB 51.1 dB 54.8 dB
2024-08-20 11:05:33 2024-08-20 11:03:24 2024-08-20 11:03:24 LwFmax 85.5 dB 87.7 dB 88.6 dB
2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 LwImin 39.9 dB 55.8 dB 61.6 dB
2024-08-20 11:05:18 2024-08-20 11:04:28 2024-08-20 11:01:32 LwImax 92.8 dB 93.7 dB 93.8 dB
2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 2024-08-20 10:54:00 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

55.2 dB 55.2 dB --- dB
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

55.2 dB 55.2 dB --- dB --- dB
LCeq - LAeq 6.0 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB
Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 57.1 dB
LAS 10.0 53.9 dB
LAS 33.3 44.7 dB
LAS 50.0 42.4 dB
LAS 66.6 41.3 dB
LAS 90.0 40.1 dB
Exceedances
Count Duration
LZS > 85 dB 1 2
LZS > 95 dB 0 0
LZpk > 135 dB 0 0
LZpk > 137 dB 0 0
LZpk > 140 dB 0 0
344
Sound Exposure
SEL Z 97.9 dB
EZ (Pa²s) 2.5 Pa²s
EZ,8 h (Pa²s) 79.3 Pa²s
EZ,40 h (Pa²s) 396.3 Pa²s
EZ (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,8 h (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,40 h (Pa²h) 0.1 Pa²h
Powered by Larson Davis
345

Site Number: LT 1
Recorded By: Rosey Worden
Job Number: 2024-182
Date: 8/20/2024 – 8/21/2024
Time: 11:20 a.m. – 11:20 a.m.

Location: Northern edge of Project Site
Source of Peak Noise: Vehicular activity on adjacent roadways Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB) Peak (dB)

49.7 35.1 90.2 108.7

Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note

Sound

Est.

Duration: 24 hours Sky: clear
Note: dBA Offset = 0:00 Sensor Height (ft): 4
Wind Ave Speed (mph) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (hPa) 7 72 30.05

Photo of Measurement Location

346
SoundExpert 821 Summary: 2024-08-21 16:01:25
User:

Location:

Job Description:

Notes:

Meter General Information
Model Serial
Meter SoundExpert 821 40159
Preamp PRM821
Microphone 377B02
Unique File Id 00C:00009CDF:66C47BE6:00000DA0
Overall Measurement
Start Date & Time 2024-08-20 11:20:06
Stop Date & Time 2024-08-21 11:20:06
Run Time 24:00:00
Pre-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) 0.06 dB(114.0 dB) 2024-08-20 11:13:36 Pre-Sensitivity -25.64 dB re 1V/Pa
Post-Calibration Deviation (Cal Lvl) ---(---) ---
Post-Sensitivity ---
LAIeq 53.6 dB
A C Z
Lweq 49.7 58.9 64.8
Lwpk 108.7 dB 108.3 dB 108.6 dB
2024-08-20 11:20:17 2024-08-20 11:20:17 2024-08-20 11:20:17 LwSmin 34.4 dB 47.0 dB 53.7 dB
2024-08-20 11:53:34 2024-08-21 01:44:13 2024-08-20 12:25:41 LwSmax 79.0 dB 87.4 dB 91.6 dB
2024-08-20 22:11:57 2024-08-21 08:50:33 2024-08-20 17:23:35 LwFmin 33.8 dB 45.4 dB 50.0 dB
2024-08-20 11:53:33 2024-08-21 01:44:13 2024-08-20 12:23:40 LwFmax 85.2 dB 90.4 dB 96.2 dB
2024-08-20 11:20:17 2024-08-21 07:22:36 2024-08-20 17:23:35 LwImin 35.1 dB 49.1 dB 56.4 dB
2024-08-20 11:53:34 2024-08-21 01:44:13 2024-08-20 12:25:43 LwImax 90.2 dB 93.8 dB 98.9 dB
2024-08-20 11:20:17 2024-08-21 07:22:36 2024-08-21 07:22:36 w = frequency weighting (A, C or Z)
Community Noise LDN LDay (07:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

55.2 dB 50.4 dB 48.5 dB
LDEN LDay (07:00-19:00) LEve (19:00-22:00) LNight (22:00-07:00)

55.7 dB 50.0 dB 51.5 dB 48.5 dB
LCeq - LAeq 9.2 dB
Overload Count 0
Overload Duration 00:00:00
A C Z
Under Range Peak 50.0 dB 50.0 dB 62.0 dB
Under Range Limit 24.0 dB 27.0 dB 37.0 dB
Noise Floor 17.0 dB 18.0 dB 25.0 dB
Ln Percentiles
LAS 5.0 53.7 dB
LAS 10.0 52.0 dB
LAS 33.3 48.3 dB
LAS 50.0 46.4 dB
LAS 66.6 44.4 dB
LAS 90.0 41.2 dB
Exceedances
Count Duration
LZS > 85 dB 22 56
LZS > 95 dB 0 0
LZpk > 135 dB 0 0
LZpk > 137 dB 0 0
LZpk > 140 dB 0 0
347
Sound Exposure
SEL Z 114.2 dB
EZ (Pa²s) 105.0 Pa²s
EZ,8 h (Pa²s) 35.0 Pa²s
EZ,40 h (Pa²s) 174.9 Pa²s
EZ (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,8 h (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
EZ,40 h (Pa²h) 0.0 Pa²h
Powered by Larson Davis
348

ATTACHMENT B
Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) Outputs –Traffic Noise

349

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Number: 2024-183
Project Name: Almond Gardens Apartment
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Analysis Scenario(s): Existing
Source of Traffic Volumes: Institute of Transportation Engineers Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: X CNEL:

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Traffic Noise Levels
Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Analysis Condition Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Land Use Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1
Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn
Between Civic Center Boulevard and Mulberry Street Residential 2 0 8 109 25 25 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 44.7 44.9 Between Almond Street and Driftwood Drive Residential 4 15 220 1,083 25 235 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 49.2 45.0 0 Between Almond Street and Driftwood Drive Commercial 3 0 361 2,190 20 100 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 53.1 49.9 1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location.

Almond Street
Civic Center Boulevard
Mulberry Street
FHWA Noise Model Almond Gardens ECORP Consulting 8/23/2024 350

ATTACHMENT C
Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model Outputs – Project Construction

351
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/20/2024
Case Description: Almond Gardens Apartments
Description Land Use
Demolition Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 175 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 175 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 175 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 175 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 78.7 71.7
Excavator 69.8 65.8
Excavator 69.8 65.8
Excavator 69.8 65.8
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Total 78.7 75.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
352
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/20/2024
Case Description: Almond Gardens Apartments
Description Land Use
Site Preparation Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Total 73.1 76.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
353
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/20/2024
Case Description: Almond Gardens Apartments
Description Land Use
Grading Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Excavator No 40 80.7 175 0
Grader No 40 85 175 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Excavator 69.8 65.8
Grader 74.1 70.1
Dozer 70.8 66.8
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Total 74.1 76.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
354
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/20/2024
Case Description: Almond Gardens Apartments
Description Land Use
Building
Construction,
Paving and Painting
Residential
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 175 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 175 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 175 0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 175 0
Generator No 50 80.6 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 175 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 175 0
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 175 0
Paver No 50 77.2 175 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 175 0
Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 175 0
Roller No 20 80 175 0
Roller No 20 80 175 0
Tractor No 40 84 175 0
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 175 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 69.7 61.7
Front End Loader 68.2 64.2
Front End Loader 68.2 64.2
Front End Loader 68.2 64.2
355
Generator 69.7 66.7
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Welder / Torch 63.1 59.1
Concrete Mixer Truck 67.9 63.9
Concrete Mixer Truck 67.9 63.9
Paver 66.3 63.3
Pavement Scarafier 78.6 71.6
Pavement Scarafier 78.6 71.6
Roller 69.1 62.1
Roller 69.1 62.1
Tractor 73.1 69.1
Compressor (air) 66.8 62.8
Total 78.6 79.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
356

Attachment 7 – Notice of Exemption

357
358
359
360
361

Attachment 8 – 8-Step Planning Process Memo

362

Almond Garden Apartments– 8-Step Planning Process
Decision Process for E.O 11988 as provided by 24 CFR §55.20

DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

This document consists of the following sections:

1. Introduction

2. Project Description and Location

3. 8-Step Planning Process

4. References

Attachments
A. Flood Insurance Rate Map
B. Early Notice and Public Review for a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain

Figures

1. Project Vicinity

2. Project Location

3. Site Plan
363

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
1 April 2025
2024-182

1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. D epartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) oversees an 8-step decision making process for complying with the floodplain management requirements of 24 CFR 55.20 . The 8 -step is required by both Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands Protection). 24 CFR Part 55 are HUD’s regulations developed to establish standards to ensure compliance with both of these Executive Orders.

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The 3.19-acre Almond Gardens Apartments Project (Project) Area is located at 707 -815 Almond Street in Suisun City, Solano County, CA and is identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0032-101-420 and 0032-102- 160.

2.2 Project Description
Currently, 10 buildings consisting of 51 units are present on the Project Site. Some of these buildings have been deemed uninhabitable and not financially feasible to cure and restore to a market-typical or habitable condition. Surrounding land uses includ e single-family housing to the north, multi -family housing to the south, a public park and middle school to the east, and a transit station to the west. The Project Site is bound by Mulberry Street to the east, Civic Center Boulevard to the west, Driftwood Drive to the north, and other apartment style housing to the south. The Project Site is bisected by Almond Street. Figure 1 shows the Proposed Project in conjunction with the surrounding land uses. Figure 2 includes photos of existing conditions at the Project Site.

At present, the Suisun City Housing Authority owns the property and utilizes a property management company to manage the day-to-day activities. The apartments were developed in 1962 and historically the property featured fifty -two units; but currently feat ures thirty -eight rentable units, with fourteen uninhabitable units
The Suisun City Housing Authority Board first authorized a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the buyer/developer in 2021 and has chosen to extend the DDA a few times as the Project has evolved and the buyer has continued due diligence work. Most recently, the DDA was extended in December 2023 through the end of 2025 to allow for pursuit of tax credit financing as the Project is proposed as a completely affordable project. Further, following the release of a Request for Proposals, Harbor Park LLC responded and was awarded 96 Project-Based Housing Vouchers in November 2023.

The Project includes demolition of the existing multi- family housing that is currently on the lot, and then constructing a new 97-unit affordable housing facility. As mentioned above, the property has been deemed uninhabitable and not financially feasible to cure and restore to habitable condition. The Project will include 58 two-bedroom units, 30-three- bedroom units, 10-four-bedroom units, and a manager’s unit across six buildings. The site layout of the Proposed Project can be found in Figure 3. 364

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
2 April 2025
2024-182

The Proposed Project will consist of a net increase of 47 units and would result in five 3 -story buildings, a manager’s suite, and an onsite maintenance shop. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include amenities such as 121 rear parking spaces, a com munity building, onsite laundry, preserved and new landscaping, picnic areas, and a play structure. The timeline for the Proposed Project would require a 1 -2- month demolition period, followed by approximately 18 months of construction. The parcel is desig nated as Residential High -Density (RHD) and allows a range of 24.1 -54 dwellings per acre, according to the Waterfront District Specific Plan. The Project is consistent with this designation.

The buildings will be constructed as a walk-up, open air lobby style with type-V wood construction. Outside will consist of stucco plaster with wood trim. Elevators are not anticipated in any of the buildings. Balconies and patios will have aluminum awnings, and the roof will be asphalt shingles. The foundation is a raised matt slab, and the new buildings have been designed in compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood mitigation standards. Additionally, all trees will be retained and protected throughout construction. Figure 4 provides renderings of the proposed structures.

As defined in the Waterfront District Specific Plan, the RHD district is applicable to parcels suited for more dense land uses such as apartment projects. Specifically, the allowable density of this district includes a range of 24.1 – 54 dwelling units per acre and are particularly appropriate in areas in close proximity to the Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot which is approximately 1/3 of a mile from the Project Site.

The Project will be constructed in three phases in accordance with the Davis Bacon Act. The Project phasing is designed around creating the least disruption for the existing residents and will be constructed in three independent and successive phases. The first phase will consist of one three story building that will house 20 units. The construction of this building may require the temporary relocation of three of the existing tenants. Once the building is completed, the relocated tenants will have the prio rity to return to Almond Gardens. The existing tenants will then be offered the chance to occupy the remaining units. The completion of this phase and the transfer of the existing tenants to the new building will clear the path for the commencement of the second phase. The completion of the second phase in the same manner as the first phase will lead to the construction of the third and last phase of the Project. The existing tenants will receive relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (42 United States Code [USC] 4601-4655) and implementing regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. Furthermore, this Project will observe and comply with U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations in 24 CFR part 135 that implement debarment as defined in 24 CFR Sections 5.1(c) and 24 CFR Part 24.

365
Project Area
Map Date: 8/21/2024
Sources: ESRI, USGSLocation: N:\2024\Proposals_2024\P24-454 Almond Garden Apartments\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\AGA LnV.aprx - AGA LnV 20240821 (kedwards - 8/21/2024) Fairfield South (1949 p.r. 1985, NAD 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

Solano County, California
Unsectioned Wetlands Land Grant
Latitude (NAD83): 38.240575°
Longitude (NAD83): -122.035669°
Watershed: Suisun Bay (18050001)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2024-182 Almond Gardens Apartments Project
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Project Area - 3.72 ac.
366
Por
t S
t
Civic C
en
te
r B
lvd
Dr iftwoo d Dr
Alm ond St
Jos
iah C
ir
Map Date: 8/28/2024
Sources: Esri Imagery, Maxar (2022)Location: N:\2024\Proposals_2024\P24-454 Almond Garden Apartments\MAPS\Aerial_Maps\AGA Aerial.aprx - AGA Project Aerial 20240822 (kedwards - 8/28/2024) Map Contents
Project Area - 3.72 ac.

I
0 100
Feet
2024-182 Almond Gardens Apartments Project
Figure 2. Project Aerial
367

368

369

370

371

372

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
6 April 2025
2024-182

3. 8-Step Planning Process
Step 1: Determine whether the action is located in a 100 -year floodplain (or a 500- year floodplain for critical action)
The proposed project site is located within AE Zone (area of special flood hazard with water surface elevations determined) as indicated on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel number: 06095C0456F, effective date 8/3/2016. This project is (a) demolition of buildings deemed uninhabitable, (b) new construction and (c) a multifamily housing project of greater than four units and, for these reasons, E.O. 19988 applies. An evaluation of direct and indirect impacts associated with construction, occupancy, and modification of the floodplain is required.

The proposed project, Almond Gardens Apartments, includes the demolition of 10 buildings consisting of 51 units that are deemed condemned. A new 97-unit affordable housing facility will be constructed in its place. The Suisun Slough, located adjacent to the Project area, has been a natural floodplain fo r many years. Therefore, this analysis will consider impacts to the floodway along with concerns for loss of life and property.

Step 2: Notify the Public for Early Review of the Proposal and Involve the Affected and Interested Public in the Decision-Making Process
A public notice describing the project was published in the Daily Republic, the local and regional paper, on February 9, 2025 (see attachment B). The ad targeted local residents, including those in the floodplain. A copy of the published notification was kept in the project’s environmental review records and is attached to this document. The required 15 calendar days were allowed for public comment. As required by regulation, the notice also included the name, proposed location and description of the ac tivity, total number of floodplain acres involved, and the HUD official or responsible entity contact for information as well as the location and hours of the office at which a full description of the proposed action can be viewed.

No comments were received regarding the Proposed Project during the comment period.

Step 3: Identify and Evaluate Practicable Alternatives
Suisun City’s residential housing stock, although older with little new activity, has seen significant rent growth for multifamily products as well as steady increases in single -family home values. The current housing stock is heavily weighted towards sing le-family development. Access to well -paid jobs in the Bay Area’s regional employment centers, as well as local manufacturing and light industrial jobs within and around Solano County present career opportunities for younger households and residents but ca n also allow the City to better position itself by offering more affordable housing. The Proposed Project will target low-income families earning 30 -50 percent of area median income. Additionally, t he redevelopment of these parcels, which has been slowly falling into disrepair for years, will significantly address these objectives by not only restoring the unit count, but also nearly doubling it while also improving street appeal and image of the property.
373

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
7 April 2025
2024-182

Therefore, the selection criteria for alternatives are:
• The Project must be within the City limits of the City of Suisan City • The Project provide redevelopment of the existing Almond Garden’s Apartments that are currently uninhabitable and in disrepair
The following viable alternatives to the Proposed Project have been identified:

Alternative A - Proposed Project. This Alternative would demolish the existing Almond Garden Apartments that are currently in disrepair and uninhabitable and then construct a new 97-unit affordable housing facility.

The Project will consist of a net increase of 47 units and would result in five 3 -story buildings, a manager’s suite, and an onsite maintenance shop. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include amenities such as 121 rear parking spaces, a community building, onsite laundry, preserved and new landscaping, picnic areas, and a play structure. The Project Site would be located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains.

Alternative B – Alternative Property Outside of the 100-year Floodplain. If the Project were to move to an alternative site, the existing Almond Gardens Apartments would remain uninhabitable .

Alternative C - No Action Alternative. With this alternative, the demolition of the existing uninhabitable Almond Gardens would not occur. The site would remain available for any other development projects until they were demolished or repaired, which was been determined to be too costly. Future development may not include affordable housing.

Alternative D – Lower Density Development. This alternative would construct a smaller development than the Proposed Project on the same site. However, a smaller development would not maximize the potential use of the property for affordable housing and would have similar environmental impacts as the Proposed Project. This alternative was, therefore, rejected for further analysis.

Step 4 : Identify Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts Associated with Floodplain Development
Alternative A is the Proposed Project (Preferred Alternative). The Alternative proposes to configure the buildings in order to minimize impacts on the existing grades and work as much as possible with the existing topography. The facility’s finished floor elevations of all buildings will be above the flood plain elevation, with property passthrough foundation designs, per California Building Code . Stormwater discharge would remain the same as prior to re development. The Project would require an inspection by a professional engineer, surveyor or building inspector. Impacts to air quality and biological resources would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measures listed in the Environmental Assessment prepared for the Proposed Project.
374

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
8 April 2025
2024-182

Alternative B is Alternative Property Outside of the 100-year Floodplain. If the Project were to move to an alternative site, the existing Almond Gardens Apartments would remain uninhabitable. This alternative would not meet the Project objectives.

Alternative C is the No Action Alternative. The alternative would not redevelop the project site into a new 97-unit affordable housing facility. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Project. It is likely that the Project Site would remain in disrepair and unused. This alternative would not meet the City’s need for affordable housing.

Alternative D is the lower density alternative. As mentioned above, this alternative would have similar environmental impacts as the Proposed Project. This alternative was, therefore, rejected for further analysis.

Step 5: Where Practicable, Design or Modify the Proposed Action to Minimize the Potential Adverse Impacts to Lives, Property, and Natural Values within the Floodplain and to Restore and Preserve the Values of the Floodplain. a) Preserving Lives: In order to preserve lives, the new interior common areas will display an evacuation plan. All residents will also be briefed on the location of the flood hazard area and evacuation plans upon placement.
b) Preserving Property: In order to preserve property, flood insurance will also be acquired and maintained in order to mitigate possible flood damage. The building s will be floodproofed in compliance with FEMA Coastal Standards and the International Residential Code. The existing project site contour elevation is approximately 5.5 feet, resulting in a flood depth of approximately

4.5 feet. To ensure compliance with FEMA regulations and minimize risk of flooding, the elevated finish floor level of the 1st floor will be a minimum of 10.50 feet, placing the first floor above the flood zone.
c) Preserving Natural Values and Minimizing Impacts: By utilizing a project area that is already part of the built environment , the new affordable housing facilities will have negligible impacts on the environment, as was analyzed and determined by the Environmental Assessment.

Step 6: Re-Evaluate the Alternatives
Overall, the Proposed Project would have a net positive effect. The nature of the project is to replace condemned and inhabitable apartments with new construction. The project is consistent with local zoning and General Plan designations. The Project would upgrade amenities in comparison to the existing complex, and no significant effects to wildlife or sensitive habitats would occur.

The No Action Alternative would be to leave the infrastructure in place and the site would remain in its current condition which consist of a dilapidated apartment complex that will continue to deteriorate and possibly pose a higher risk to life and property if not reconstructed. 375

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process ECORP Consulting Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartment – 8-Step Planning Process
9 April 2025
2024-182

Step 7: Findings and Public Explanation
A portion of the Proposed Project site is located in a 100-year floodplain, as indicated on FEMA FIRM Panel no. 06095C0456F, effective August 3, 2016. The Suisan City Housing Authority under 24 CFR Part 55.20 has conducted an evaluation as required by Executive Order 11988, to determine the potential effect that its activity in the floodplain will have on the human environment for the Project.

Suisan City Housing Authority has considered several alternative sizes, locations, and configurations to the Proposed Project. The Suisun City Housing Authority revaluated the following alternatives to be taken to minimize adverse impacts and to restore and preserve natural and beneficial values: alternative location, reduced project, and no project. All three alternatives were deemed infeasible, as the alternatives will not accomplish the primary objective of the Project- to demolish buildings that have been deemed inhabitable and reconstruct the site with an increased number of new affordable housing units .

Therefore, Alternative A (Proposed Project) best meets the purpose and need for new affordable housing in this area of the City of Suisan City.

Final Notice and Public Explanation of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain A public notice of this determination was published in the Daily Republic on February 9, 2025. A copy of the notice as published is attached (Attachment B). A final notice was published in the Daily Republic on April 7, 2025. No comments were received during either noticing period.

Step 8: Implement the Proposed Action
The Suisun City Housing Authority will ensure that this plan, as modified and described above, is executed and necessary language will be included in all agreements with participating parties. The Suisun City Housing Authority will also take an active role in monitoring the construction process to e nsure no unnecessary impacts occur nor unnecessary risks are taken. The flood insurance requirement for the life of the property will be realized through the use of a covenant on the property title.

376

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process

Attachment A – Flood Insurance Rate Map

377

1024 Iron Front Road
Tel: 702-396-5113. Fax: 702-446-8155

Dear Camran,

Re: Confirmation of Flood Zone Mitigation for Almond Garden

I am writing to confirm that our project design team has taken necessary measures to mitigate the flood zone for the Almond Garden located at Almond Street, Suisun City, CA. According to the FEMA Flood Hazard Rate Map number 06095C0456F, dated August 3, 2016, the project site is situated in Flood Zone AE with a base elevation of 10 feet NAVD88 Datum. The existing project site contour elevation i s approximately 5‐6 feet, resul ting in a flood depth of approximately 4‐5 feet.

To ensure compliance with FEMA regulations and minimize the risk of flooding, we have elevated the finish floor level of the 1st floor of the building t o a m i n i m u m o f 1 0 . 5 0 f e e t , placing it above the flood zone. The first floor will be accessible via stairs. However, the lobby area, which is designated for living and walking areas only, ha s a varying finish floor level of

8.20 to 8.50 feet, as it is within the flood zone.

This elevation strategy is consi stent with nearby projects, inc luding the Holiday Inn Express a n d 1 6 D U L o t z W a y p r o j e c t s . B y e l e v a t i n g t h e b u i l d i n g t o 1 0 . 5 feet, we have effectively mitigated the flood zone and ensured that the project is in compliance with FEMA regulations.

The specific elevations are as follows:
‐ Flood Zone AE base elevation: 10 feet NAVD88 Datum
‐ Finish floor elevation of the building (except lobby area): 10 feet + 0.5 feet = 10.5 feet

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information or clarification.

Sincerely yours,
ACE Design, LLC
Jaspal S. Sidhu, P.E.

Principal

378
N a t io n a l F lo o d H a z a r d L a y e r F I R M e t t e 0 5 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 5 0 0 2 , 0 0 02 5 0
F e e t
Ü

S E E F I S R E P O R T F O R D E T A I L E D L E G E N D A N D I N D E X M A P F O R F I R M P A N E L L A Y O U T

S P E C I A L F L O O D

H A Z A R D A R E A S
W i t h o u t B a s e F l o o d E l e v a t i o n ( B F E ) Z o n e A , V , A 9 9
W i t h B F E o r D e p t hZ o n e A E , A O , A H , V E , A R R e g u l a t o r y F l o o d w a y
0 . 2 % A n n u a l C h a n c e F l o o d H a z a r d , A r e a s o f 1 % a n n u a l c h a n c e f l o o d w i t h a v e r a g e d e p t h l e s s t h a n o n e f o o t o r w i t h d r a i n a g e a r e a s o f l e s s t h a n o n e s q u a r e m i l eZ o n e X F u t u r e C o n d i t i o n s 1 % A n n u a l
C h a n c e F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e X
A r e a w i t h R e d u c e d F l o o d R i s k d u e t o L e v e e . S e e N o t e s .Z o n e X
A r e a w i t h F l o o d R i s k d u e t o L e v e eZ o n e D N O S C R E E NA r e a o f M i n i m a l F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e X A r e a o f U n d e t e r m i n e d F l o o d H a z a r dZ o n e D C h a n n e l , C u l v e r t , o r S t o r m S e w e r L e v e e , D i k e , o r F l o o d w a l l
C r o s s S e c t i o n s w i t h 1 % A n n u a l C h a n c e 1 7 . 5W a t e r S u r f a c e E l e v a t i o n
C o a s t a l T r a n s e c t
C o a s t a l T r a n s e c t B a s e l i n e
P r o f i l e B a s e l i n e
H y d r o g r a p h i c F e a t u r e
B a s e F l o o d E l e v a t i o n L i n e ( B F E ) E f f e c t i v e L O M R s
L i m i t o f S t u d y
J u r i s d i c t i o n B o u n d a r y
D i g i t a l D a t a A v a i l a b l e
N o D i g i t a l D a t a A v a i l a b l e
U n m a p p e d
T h i s m a p c o m p l i e s w i t h F E M A 's s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e u s e o f d i g i t a l f l o o d m a p s i f i t i s n o t v o i d a s d e s c r i b e d b e l o w .

T h e b a s e m a p s h o w n c o m p l i e s w i t h F E M A 's b a s e m a p a c c u r a c y s t a n d a r d s
T h e f l o o d h a z a r d i n f o r m a t i o n i s d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e N F H L w e b s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d b y F E M A . T h i s m a p w a s e x p o r t e d o n 2 / 1 5 / 2 0 2 2 a t 3 : 4 8 A M a n d d o e s n o t r e f l e c t c h a n g e s o r a m e n d m e n t s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h i s d a t e a n d t i m e . T h e N F H L a n d e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n m a y c h a n g e o r b e c o m e s u p e r s e d e d b y n e w d a t a o v e r t i m e .

T h i s m a p i m a g e i s v o i d i f t h e o n e o r m o r e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g m a p e l e m e n t s d o n o t a p p e a r : b a s e m a p i m a g e r y , f l o o d z o n e l a b e l s , l e g e n d , s c a l e b a r , m a p c r e a t i o n d a t e , c o m m u n i t y i d e n t i f i e r s , F I R M p a n e l n u m b e r , a n d F I R M e f f e c t i v e d a t e . M a p i m a g e s f o r u n m a p p e d a n d u n m o d e r n i z e d a r e a s c a n n o t b e u s e d f o r r e g u l a t o r y p u r p o s e s .

L e g e n d

O T H E R A R E A S O F

F L O O D H A Z A R D

O T H E R A R E A S

G E N E R A L

S T R U C T U R E S

O T H E R

F E A T U R E S

M A P P A N E L S
8 B
2 0 . 2
T h e p i n d i s p l a y e d o n t h e m a p i s a n a p p r o x i m a t e p o i n t s e l e c t e d b y t h e u s e r a n d d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t a n a u t h o r i t a t i v e p r o p e r t y l o c a t i o n . 1 : 6 , 0 0 0
1 2 2 ° 2 '2 7 " W 3 8 ° 1 4 '4 0 " N
1 2 2 ° 1 '5 0 " W 3 8 ° 1 4 '1 2 " N
B a s e m a p : U S G S N a t i o n a l M a p : O r t h o i m a g e r y : D a t a r e f r e s h e d O c t o b e r , 2 0 2 0 379

Almond Gardens Apartments Project – 8-Step Planning Process

Attachment B – Early Notice and Public Review of a Proposed Activity in a Floodplain

380
381
Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment for the
Almond Gardens Apartments P roject
City of Suisun City, California

Prepared For:

Harbor Park, LLC
9700 Village Center Drive, Suite 120
Granite Bay, CA 95746

Prepared By:

55 Hanover Lane
Chico, CA 95926

August 2024
382
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. i August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartments Project 2024-182

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 AIR QUALITY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Air Quality Setting ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.1.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................................................................................. 6

2.1.3 Land Use Compatibility with Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Sources ........................ 6

2.1.4 Ambient Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.5 Sensitive Receptors ............................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2.2 State ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.3 Local ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2.4 Threshold of Significance ............................................................................................................. 12

2.2.5 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.6 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 15

3.0 GREEENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 22

3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting ................................................................................................................................ 22

3.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 24

3.3.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.2 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................................. 24

4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 30

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Criteria Air Pollutants Sources and Eﬀects ............................................................... 4 Table 2-2. Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Near Air Pollutant Sources ..................... 7 Table 2-3. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data in Project Area ................................................................ 8 Table 2-4. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Solano County Portion of the SFBAAB ............... 9 Table 2-5. Federal General Conformity De Minimis Emissions Levels ......................................................... 13 Table 2-6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Signiﬁcance ...................................... 14 Table 2-7. Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................................................... 16 383
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. ii August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-8. Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ................................................................. 17 Table 2-9. BAAQMD Cumulative Health Risk Thresholds ............................................................................ 20 Table 2-10. Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project ................................................................ 20 Table 2-11. Calculated Health Risk at the Project Site ................................................................................ 21 Table 3-1. Summary of Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................. 23 Table 3-2. Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 25 Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................... 26 Table 3-4. Social Cost of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................... 28

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Description
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CH4 Methane
City Suisun City
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
hp Horsepower
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWG Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrous oxides
O3 Ozone
ppm parts per million
PM10 Coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
384
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. iii August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Description
Project Almond Gardens Apartments Project
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
ROG Reactive organic gases
SC-GHG Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO Secretarial Order
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
USEPA U.S. Environment Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

385
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 1 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartments Project 2024-182

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for the Almond Gardens Apartments (Project), which proposes the construction of 96 affordable housing units plus one manager unit for on-site property management in the City of Suisun City, California.

This assessment was prepared using methodologies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Regional and local existing conditions are presented, along with pertinent emissions standards and regulations. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate the Project-generated criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions during the Project’s construction and operation and to determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment. Project generated air pollutants are compared to the Conformity Determination thresholds established by the USEPA. GHG emissions are quantified and disclosed for informational purposes.

1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project Site is located in Suisun City (City) at 707 - 815 Almond Street on 2.53 acres. It is surrounded by residential complexes in all directions. The Project Site currently accommodates 13 condemned apartment buildings and associated parking, all of which are proposed for demolition. Specifically, there are currently 13 multi-unit apartment buildings consisting of 51 individual units total on the site. The buildings have been deemed uninhabitable or soon- to-be uninhabitable by the City and need to be demolished before new construction can commence.

The Project is proposing the construction of 96 affordable housing units for low- income families plus one manager unit for on -site property management. The Project will target low -income families earning 30 percent to 50 percent of the area median income. The unit mix includes 58 two -bedroom units, 30 three - bedroom units and 10 four - bedroom units with ample community gathering space and outdoor recreational amenities.

The Project would consist of six 3 -story walk- up open air lobby style buildings with five dedicated to residential units and one dedicated to the management office and maintenance shop. Four of the residential buildings would contain 22 units, one would contain nine units. The Project proposes 121 open parking spaces.

386
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

2.0 AIR QUALITY

2.1 Air Quality Setting

The Project Site is located in Suisun City, Solano County, which lies in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB is approximately 5,600 square miles in area and consists of nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties; the southwestern portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. The topography of the SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys and bays. This complex terrain, especially the higher elevations, distorts the normal wind flow patterns in the SFBAAB. The greatest distortions occur when low-level inversions are present and the air beneath the inversion flows independently of air above the inversion, a condit ion that is common in the summertime.

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited, and stagnant conditions are likely to result.

Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large-scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often cr eated between the coast and the Central Valley, and small- scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays.

During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more dir ectly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills.

Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno Gap.

An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions. The areas having the highest air pollution potential tend to be those that experience the highest temperatures in the summer and the lowest temperatures in the winter. The coastal areas are exposed to the prevailing marine air, creating cooler temperatures in the summer, warmer temperatures in winter, and stratus clouds all year. The inland valleys are sheltered from the marine air and experience hotter summers and colder winters. Thus, the topography of the inland valleys creates conditions conducive to high air pollution potential.
387
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 3 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

The federal Clean Air Act ( CAA) (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Program (SIP). The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans , and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that the states containing areas violating the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) revis e their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is designated by law to adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD is required to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the air basin is in nonattainment. Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal government has established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. In order to reduce such emissions, the local agency, BAAQMD, adopts and enforces rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, issues permits for stationary sources of air pollution, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implemen ts programs and regulations required by the CAA and CAA Amendments.

2.1.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal government has established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. The USEPA focuses on the following criteria pollutants to determine air quality: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead. O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5 are generally considered to be region al pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO 2, and SO 2 are considered to be local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM is also considered a local pollutant. Health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 2-1.

388
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 4 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-1. Summary of Criteria Air Pollutants Sources and Effects Pollutant Major Manmade Sources Human Health and Welfare Effects CO
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

NO2
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles, energy
utilities and industrial sources.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. Causes
brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

O3
Formed by a chemical reaction between
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of
sunlight. Common sources of these
precursor pollutants include motor vehicle
exhaust, industrial emissions, solvents, paints
and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases
lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems.

Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

PM2.5 & PM10
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-
burning stoves and fireplaces, automobiles
and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation
of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing;
aggravated asthma; development of chronic
bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart
attacks; and premature death in people with heart
or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

SO2
An odorless, colorless gas formed when
carbon in fuel is not burned completely; a
component of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Source: California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA 2013)

2.1.1.1 Carbon Monoxide
CO in the urban environment is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentra tions can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease and impair central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short distances. Relatively high concentrations of CO are typically found near crowded intersecti ons and along heavy roadways with slow moving traffic. Even under the most severe meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of CO are limited to locations within relatively short distances (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of the source. Overall CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973.

2.1.1.2 Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen gas comprises about 80 percent of the air and is naturally occurring. At high temperatures and under certain conditions, nitrogen can combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitric oxides (NO
x). Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NO x in urban areas.

NOx is very toxic to animals and humans because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, 389
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 5 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

lungs, mucus membrane, and skin. In animals, long -term exposure to NO x increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, and lowers resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations can suffer from lung irritation or possible lung damage. Precursors of NO x, such as NO and NO2, are attributed to the formation of O 3 and PM 2.5. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO 2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

2.1.1.3 Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant, meaning it is not directly emitted. It is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) also known as reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx undergo photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of ROG emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicles and other internal combustion engine exhaust. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground - level O
3 to form. Ground -level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Because O 3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O 3 and its precursors are transported by wind and high O 3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants.

People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when O 3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground-level O3 exposure to a variety of problems including lung irritation, difficult breathing, permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure, and respiratory illnesses.

2.1.1.4 Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless gas with a pungent odor, however sulfur dioxide can react with other particulates in the atmosphere to for particulates which contribute to the haze effect. SO2 standards have been developed by the EPA to regulate all sulfur oxides, however SO2 is by far the most abundant sulfur oxide in the atmosphere.

Currently, SO2 is primarily a result of the burning of fossil fuels for power generation and other industrial sources. Modern regulations on diesel fuel have greatly reduced the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere and there are currently no areas in California that have nonacceptable levels of SO2, by state or federal standards.

2.1.1.5 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particulates of a wide range of sizes and composition.

Of concern are those particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter size (PM10) and smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5). Smaller particulates are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than larger particles. PM 10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or form the resuspension of dust, typically through construction activities and vehicular travel. PM 10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily transported over large distances. PM 2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between various gaseous pollutants, including NO x, sulfur oxides (SO x) and VOCs.

PM2.5 can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.
390
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 6 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

The principal health effects of airborne PM are on the respiratory system. Short-term exposure of high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long -term exposure is associated with premature mortality and chronic respiratory disease.

According to the USEPA, some people are much more sensit ive than others to breathing PM 10 and PM2.5.

People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may su ffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM 10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths.

2.1.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are another group of pollutants of concern. HAPs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic HAPs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic HAPs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant -by-pollutant basis. Carcinogenic HAPs can also have noncarcinogenic health hazard levels.

There are many different types of HAPs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of HAPs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Additionally, diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants composed of gaseous and solid material. The solid emissions in diesel exhaust are known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Public exposure to HAPs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of HAPs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

2.1.3 Land Use Compatibility with Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Sources The location of a development project is a major factor in determining whether it will result in localized air quality impacts. The potential for adverse air quality impacts increases as the distance between the source of emissions and members of the public decreases. While impacts on all members of the population should be considered, impacts on sensitive receptors, such as schools or hospitals, are of particular concern. In 2005, the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) published an informational guide entitled Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective . The purpose of this guide is to provide information to aid local jurisdictions in addressing issues and concerns related to the placement of sensitive land uses near major sources of air pollution. The handbook includes recommended separation distances for various land uses, summarized in Table 2-2. However, these recommendations are not site-specific and should not be interpreted as mandated “buffer zones.” It is also important to note that the recommendations of the handbook are advisory and need to be balanced with other state and local policies (CARB 2005). 391
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 7 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-2. Recommendations on Siting New Sensitive Land Uses Near Air Pollutant Sources Source Category Advisory Recommendations
Freeways and High-Traffic Roads • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day.

Distribution Centers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRU) per day, or where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
• Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
• Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the ARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners Using
Perchloroethylene
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

Source: CARB 2005
Notes: Recommendations are advisory, are not site -specific, and may not fully account for future reductions in emissions, including those resulting from compliance with existing/future regulatory requirements, such as reductions in diesel-exhaust emissions anticipated to occur with continued implementation of CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan.

2.1.4 Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality in the Project Area can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. The USEPA monitors ambient air quality through various air monitoring stations throughout the United States . O3, PM10 and PM 2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the Project region . As described in detail below, the Project Area is designated as unclassified/attainment for all federal standards of criteria pollutants with the exception of O 3 which is classified as marginal nonattainment (CARB 2022; USEPA 2024). The Fairfield – Chadbourne Road air quality monitoring station (1010 Chadbourne Road, Fairfield) is located approximately 2.36 miles southwest of the Project Site and monitors ambient concentrations of O 3. The Vacaville – Merchant Street air quality 392
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 8 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

monitoring station (650 Merchant Street, Vacaville) is located approximately 8.21 miles northeast of the Project Site and monitors ambient concentrations of PM 10. The Vallejo – Tuolumne Street air quality monitoring station (304 Tuolomne Street , Vallejo) is located approximately 14.36 miles southwest of the Project Site and monitors ambient concentrations of PM2.5. Ambient emission concentrations will vary due to localized variations in emission sources and climate and should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations in the Project Area.

Table 2-3 summarizes the published data concerning O
3, PM2.5 and PM10 since 2021 for each year that the
monitoring data is provided.

Table 2-3. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data in Project Area Pollutant Scenario 2021 2022 2023
O3 – Fairfield-Chadbourne Road
Max 1-hour concentration (ppm) (state/federal) 0.093 / 0.093 0.081 / 0.081 0.079 / 0.079 Max 8-hour concentration (ppm) (state/federal) 0.079 / 0.078 0.064 / 0.063 0.065 / 0.065 Number of days above 1-hour standard (state/federal) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Number of days above 8-hour standard (state/federal) 2 / 2 0 / 0 0 / 0 PM10 – Vacaville-Merchant Street
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 49.6 / 50 35.4 / 33.4 38.1 / 37.6 Annual Average (federal) 14.6 11.9 12.5
Number of days above 24-hour standard (state/federal) * / 0 0 / 0 * / 0 PM2.5 – Vallejo-Tuolumne Street
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 32 / 32 31 / 31 37 / 36.1 Number of days above federal 24-hour standard 0 0 1.1
Source: CARB 2024
Note: * = Insufficient data available
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million The USEPA designates air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The NAAQS for O
3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one - to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The attainment status for the Solano County portion of the SFBAAB, which encompasses the Project Site, is included in Table 2-4.

393
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 9 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-4. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the Solano County Portion of the SFBAAB Pollutant Federal Designation
1-Hour O3 Other Nonattainment
8-Hour O3 Marginal Nonattainment
PM10 Unclassified
PM2.5 Unclassified/Attainment
CO Unclassified/Attainment
Lead Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Unclassified/Attainment
Source: CARB 2022; USEPA 2024
The determination of whether an area meets the federal standards is based on air quality monitoring data.

As shown above, sometimes areas are unclassified, which means there is insufficient monitoring data for determining attainment or nonattainment. Unclassified areas are typically treated as being in attainment.

Because the attainment/nonattainment designation is pollutant -specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Maintenance areas are areas that have previously been in nonattainment but now meet the air quality standards. The Solano County region is federally designated as marginal nonattainment for O
3 and is designated as unclassified/attainment for all
other all federal standards of criteria pollutants (CARB 2022; USEPA 2024).

2.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive recep tors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The Project Site is located in a highly developed area. The nearest existing sensitive land use to the Project Site are residences located to the north , west, and south as well as Crystal Middle School located to the east.

394
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 10 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

2.2 Regulatory Framework

2.2.1 Federal

2.2.1.1 Clean Air Act
The CAA of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants.

These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthma tics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation . Table 2 -4 lists the federal attainment status es of the So lano County portion of the SFBAAB for the criteria pollutants.

2.2.2 State

2.2.2.1 State Implementation Plans
The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states contain ing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The SFBAAB currently has four air quality plans in place, discussed below, which collectively constitute the SFBAAB SIP elements. • 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan . The 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was developed for compliance with the NAAQS for the 1 -hour O
3 standard. In June 2005, the USEPA revoked the standard for 1 - hour O 3; however, the state standard for 1 -hour O 3 remains. Therefore, BAAQMD continues to implement the strategies outlined in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. 395
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 11 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

• 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy . The 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy served as an update to the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and expanded on strategies to achieve compliance with the state 1 - hour O3 standard.
• 2010 Clean Air Plan . The 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses various pollutants including O 3, PM, and air toxics, as well as GHG emissions within the SFBAAB. It serves to update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement all feasible measures, to reduce O3, and to consider the impacts of O3 control measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas emissions in a single, integrated plan and review progress in improving air quality in recent years.
• 2017 Clean Air Plan. In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, whose primary goals are to protect public health and to protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and complies with state air quality planning requirements , as codified in the California Health and Safety Code (although the 2017 plan was delayed beyond the three -year update requirement of the code). State law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O
3 precursors and to reduce the transport of O 3 precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 measures to address reduction of several pollutants: O
3 precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHGs. Other measures focus on a single type of pollutant: super GHGs such as methane and black carbon that consists of harmful fine particles that affect public health. These control strategies are grouped into the following categories:
a. Stationary Source Measures
b. Transportation Control Measures
c. Energy Control Measures
d. Building Control Measures
e. Agricultural Control Measures
f. Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
g. Waste Management Control Measures
h. Water Control Measures
i. Super GHG Control Measures

2.2.3 Local

2.2.3.1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the local agency designated by law to adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD responsibilities include preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing air pollution rules, issuing permits for 396
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 12 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

and inspecting stationary air pollution sources, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing state and federal programs and regulations.

2.2.4 Threshold of Significance

2.2.4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency General Conformity The impact analysis provided below is based on thresholds set by the USEPA Conformity Determination Analysis. The General Conformity process begins with an “applicability analysis,” whereby it must be determined how and to what degree the Conformity Rules apply. According to USEPA’s General Conformity Guidance: Questions and Answers (1994), before any approval is given for a Federal Action to go forward, the federal agency must apply the applicability requirements found at 40 CFR § 93.153 to the Federal Action and/or determine on a pollutant -by-pollutant basis, whether a determination of General Conformity is required. During the applicability analysis, the federal agency determines the following:
 Whether the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area;  Whether one or more of the specific exemptions apply to the action;  Whether the federal agency has included the action on its list of presumed-to-conform actions;  Whether the total direct and indirect emissions are below or above the de minimis levels; and/or  Where a facility has an emissions budget approved by the State or Tribe as part of the SIP or Tribal Implementation Plan, the federal agency determines that the emissions from the proposed action are within the budget.

The General Conformity Rule allows for exemptions for emissions that are not reasonably foreseeable, will not result in an increase in emissions, are below de minimis limits, are the result of emergency actions, are included in stationary source air permit s, are for routine maintenance and repair of existing structures, or are included in a transportation conformity determination undertaken by the Federal Highway Administration or Federal Transit Administration (40 CFR 93.153(c)).

A conformity determination would be required if the annual emissions of non- attainment pollutants generated by the Proposed Project were to exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds. The de minimis limits represent a level of emissions that the USEPA has determined will have only de minimis impacts to the air quality of an area and are thus exempted from the General Conformity Rule. If the overall predicted increase in emissions of a criteria pollutant due to a federal action in a nonattainment ar ea exceeds the de minimis limits as shown in Table 2-5, the lead federal agency is required to make a conformity determination.

397
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 13 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-5. Federal General Conformity De Minimis Emissions Levels Air Pollutant Area Type Tons Per Year
Ozone (VOC or NOx)
Serious nonattainment 50
Severe nonattainment 25
Extreme nonattainment 10
Other areas outside of ozone
transport region 100
Ozone (NOx)
Marginal and moderate
nonattainment inside an ozone
transport region
100
Maintenance 100
Ozone (VOC)
Marginal and moderate
nonattainment inside an ozone
transport region
50 Maintenance within an ozone
transport region 50
Maintenance outside an ozone
transport region 100
CO, SO2 and NO2 All nonattainment and
maintenance 100
PM10
Serious nonattainment 70
Moderate nonattainment and
maintenance 100
PM2.5 All nonattainment and
maintenance 100
Lead All nonattainment and
maintenance 25
Source: USEPA 2023

2.2.4.2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts, the BAAQMD has published a guidance document for the preparation of the air quality portions of environmental documents that include thresholds of significance to be used in evaluating land use proposals. Thresholds of significance are based on a source’s projected impacts and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures.

The BAAQMD’s established thresholds of significance for land use development projects are shown in Table 2-6.
398
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 14 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance Pollutant
Construction Related Operational
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons per
year)
Ozone (VOC) 54 54 10
Ozone (NOx) 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 82 54 10
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management
Practices None None
Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Source: BAAQMD 2023
In addition to the USEPA General Conformity de minimis thresholds, Project emissions are compared to the BAAQMD annual significance thresholds for comparison purposes.

2.2.5 Methodology
The air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with the thresholds set by the USEPA Conformity Determination Analysis. General Conformity ensures that the actions taken by federal agencies do not interfere with a state’s plans to attain and maintain national standards for air quality. Established under the CAA (section 176(c)(4)), the General Conformity rule plays an important role in helping states improve air quality in those areas that do not meet the NAAQS. Under the General Conformity rule, federal agencies must work with state and local governments in a nonattainment or maintenance area to ensure that federal actions conform to the air quality plans established in the applicable state or tribal implementation plan.

The overall purpose of the General Conformity rule is to ensure that:
 federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violations of NAAQS;  actions do not worsen existing violations of the NAAQS; and  attainment of the NAAQS is not delayed.

The SFAAB portion of Solano County, where the Project Area is located, is designated unclassified, or in attainment, for all federal standards of criteria pollutants with the exception of O 3, which the region is
classified as marginal nonattainment (CARB 2022; USEPA 2024).

Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 20 22.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod provides the ability to analyze a 399
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 15 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

project based on both California and Federal air quality standards. Project construction generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for Solano County. Operational generated air pollutant emissions calculations employed information provided by the Project Site Plan, such as the number of residential units and parking spaces.

2.2.6 Impact Analysis

2.2.6.1 Project Construction-Generated Criteria Air Quality Emissions Emissions associated with the Proposed Project’s construction would be temporary and short-term but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The basic sources of short -term emissions that would be generated through the construction of the Proposed Project would be operation of the construction vehicles and equipment (i.e. cranes and forklifts ) and the creation of fugitive dust during vegetation clearing. Possible implementation activities such as clearing operations, construction ve hicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive PM emissions that affect local air quality at various times during the Project’s activities . Effects would be variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. The dry climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation.

Construction-generated emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated using the CARB - approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Attachment A for more information regarding the construction assumptions, including construction equipment and duration, used in this analysis.

Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 2-7. Construction-generated emissions are short -term and of temporary duration but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceed the Conformity Determination thresholds.

400
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 16 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-7. Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Scenario
Pollutant (tons per year)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Calendar Year 1 0.80 2.11 2.82 0.00 0.29 0.15 Construction Calendar Year 2 0.19 0.41 0.62 0.00 0.04 0.02 Solano County USEPA
Conformity Determination
Thresholds (40 CFR 93.153)
100 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed USEPA Conformity
Determination Threshold? No No No No No No

Scenario
Pollutant (pounds per day - maximum)
VOC NOx PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
PM10
(fugitive
dust)
PM2.5
(fugitive
dust)
Construction 8.26 31.7 1.37 1.26 19.8 10.1
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Best
Management
Practices
Best
Management
Practices
Exceed BAAQMD
Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Daily emissions taken from the season, summer or winter, with the highest outputs. Construction emissions account for the demolition of the existing 51 units on the Project Site that have been or will soon be deemed uninhabitable.

According to Table 2 -7, emissions generated during Project ’s construction would not exceed the USEPA Conformity Determination thresholds for Solano County or the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

2.2.6.2 Project Operations Criteria Air Quality Emissions Implementation of the Project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 as well as O3 precursors such as VOC and NOX. Table 2-8 summarizes operational emissions from the Proposed Project. As previously stated, operational related emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Operational air pollution impacts were based on model defaults and information from the Project Site Plans.

401
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 17 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-8. Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Pollutant Sector
Pollutant (tons per year)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.35 0.29 2.24 0.01 0.47 0.12
Area 0.48 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.83 0.36 2.75 0.01 0.47 0.13
Solano County USEPA
Conformity Determination
Thresholds (40 CFR 93.153)
100 100 100 100 100 100
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds 10 10 None None 15 10
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No No

Pollutant Sector
Pollutant (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 2.13 1.82 13.8 0.03 2.78 0.72
Area 2.88 0.00 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.02 0.33 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Total 5.03 2.15 19.3 0.03 2.81 0.75
BAAQMD Significance
Thresholds 54 54 - - 82 54
Exceed BAAQMD
Significance Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Daily emissions taken from the season, summer or winter, with the highest outputs. Operational emissions account for default daily trips determined by CalEEMod defaults.

As indicated in Table 2-8, operational emissions would not exceed the USEPA Conformity Determination thresholds for Solano County or the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

2.2.6.3 Project Consistency with Air Quality Planning
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market -based 402
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 18 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The region’s SIP is constituted of the BAAQMD air quality plans: 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy, 2010 Clean Air Plan, and 2017 Clean Air Plan. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, the primary goals of which are to protect public health and the climate. These air quality attainment plans are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls describing how the state will attain ambient air quality standards. These SIP plans contain air pollutant reduction strategies and demonstrate that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the time frames required under federal law. These SIP plans and associated control measures are based on in formation derived from projected growth in the SFBAAB that is used to project future emissions and then determine strategies and regulatory controls for the reduction of emissions.

Growth projections are based on the general plans developed by the counties and the incorporated cities in the SFBAAB.

A project conforms with the BAAQMD air quality plans if it 1) complies with all applicable rules and regulations and 2) is consistent with the growth forecasts in the applicable general plan, in this instance the City of Suisun City 2035 General Plan. Projects generating air pollutants below the BAAQMD significance thresholds would comply with applicable rules and regulations. Conformity with growth forecasts can be established by demonstrating that the Project is consistent with the land use plan (i.e., Ci ty of Suisun City 2035 General Plan) that was used to generate the growth forecast. A project is nonconforming if it conflicts with or delays implementation of any applicable attainment or maintenance plan by exceeding air district thresholds of significance or prop osing a development substantially denser than that assumed in the general plan.

As previously described, the Project is proposing the construction of 96 residential units with shared community spaces for various purposes and 121 parking spaces. According to the City of Suisun City General Plan’s Downtown Waterfront Specific Plan Map, the Project Site is designated as Residential High-Density (2015). Since the Project is a redevelopment of an existing multi -family residential land use consistent with the allowable uses identified by the General Plan Residential High -Density land use designation , the land use designation remains Residential High-Density. As such, the Project would be consistent with the City of Suisun City General Plan and thereby consistent with the SFBAAB portion of the SIP. Additionally, as indicated in Table 2-7 and Table 2-8, construction and operational related emissions would not exceed the USEPA Conformity Determination or BAAQMD thresholds. Furthermore, the Project is located within the direct vicinity of numerous transit services including bus stops and the Suisun/Fairfield Amtrak stop making alternative transportation methods easily accessible for residents on the Project Site. Since the surrounding community is heavily residential, this results in decreased air quality emissions , a primary goal of regional air quality planning efforts. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
403
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 19 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

2.2.6.4 Hazardous Air Pollutant Exposure
Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in the development of any substantial sources of air toxics. There are no stationary sources associated with the operations of the Project; nor would the Project attract mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Onsite Project emissions would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. The maximum operations-related emissions of exhaust PM10, considered a surrogate for DPM, would be 2.75 pounds in a single day. Therefore, the Project would not be a substantial source of TACs. The Project will not result in a high carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk during operation.

This report also evaluates the potential health risks associated with the placement of residences at the Project Site. Specifically, the potential exposure of future residents at the Project Site to the DPM and VOC generated by the vehicular traffic traversing on Highway 12 and other neighboring roadways as well as from two permitted stationary source s located in close proximity to the Project Site. The BAAQMD provides a recommended methodology for assessing local risks and hazards. Specifically, the following TAC source types must be included:

1. Permitted Sources

2. Highways

3. Major Roadways
Permitted sources include any stationary source of TAC emissions which requires a permit to operate from the BAAQMD. Highways are identified by definition, and major roadways include any roadway with at least 10,000 average annual daily traffic . Consistent with BAAQMD recommendations, all such sources within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Project boundary are included in this analysis. The BAAQMD thresholds for identifying significant cumulative risk from local sources on a potential project are listed in Table 2-9.

404
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 20 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 2-9. BAAQMD Cumulative Health Risk Thresholds
Description Guidance
Receptor Thresholds Risks and Hazards
(Individual Project)
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan OR Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 hazard index (chronic or acute)
Ambient PM2.5 increase: >0.3 µg/m3 annual average
Risks and Hazards (Cumulative
Threshold)
Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan OR Increased cancer risk of > 100 in a million
Increased non-cancer risk of > 10.0 hazard index (chronic, from all local sources)
Ambient PM2.5 increase: > 0.8 µg/m3 annual average (from all local sources)
Accidental Release of Acutely
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Storage or use of acutely hazardous materials locating near receptors or new receptors locating near stored or used hazardous materials considered significant
Odors Five confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years Source: BAAQMD 2023
The BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Map was utilized to provide risk and hazard information on any permitted stationary source within 1,000 feet of the Project. Screening level risks and hazards are intentionally conservative and based on worst-case assumptions (BAAQMD 2024). The BAAQMD identified two sources within 1,000 feet of the Project Site which are both generators that belong to the Fairfield - Suisun Sewer District and the City of Suisun City. Details on these sources are presented in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10. Stationary Sources within 1,000 Feet of the Project Source Name Source Type Emissions Data
Source Activity Data Source
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer
District Generator Permitted Stationary BAAQMD BAAQMD
City of Suisun City
Generator for Fire
Protection
Permitted Stationary BAAQMD BAAQMD

The BAAQMD’s Mobile Source Screening Map was utilized to assess the cancer risk and hazards at the Project Site caused by nearby roadways (freeways and surface streets) , railways, and railyards . The Project Site is located near State Route 12 and a light rail commuter line. This screening map is intended to assist project sponsors in conducting cumulative cancer risk and hazard analyses . Developed by the BAAQMD in 2022 (for roadway sources) and 2024 (for rail sources), the map includes data on estimated cancer risk, annual fine particulate matter concentrations, and chronic hazards associated with these sources of air pollution in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 2024).
405
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 21 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Cumulative health risk is calculated for the Project Area using the various data layers for cancer risk and chronic hazard in the BAAQMD’s Mobile Source Screening Map for the mobile sources on nearby roadways and railways and the information reported for the permitted generators in the area from the Stationary Source Screening Map. The BAAQMD’s distance multiplier tool was applied to the cancer risk and chronic hazard value from the stationary source emissions to account for the distance of the Project Site to the permitted sources.

The cumulative cancer risk and hazard value are below BAAQMD thresholds as shown in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11. Calculated Health Risk at the Project Site
Description Cancer Risk Chronic Hazard
Calculated Health on the Project Site 12.9 0.0
BAAQMD Cumulative Health Risk Threshold 100 10
Exceeds Significance Threshold? No No

As shown, the calculated health risks at the Project Site are all below the BAAQMD health risk thresholds.

Furthermore, as previously described, in 2005 CARB published an informational guide entitled Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. The purpose of this guide is to provide information to aid local jurisdictions in addressing issues and concerns related to the placement of sensitive land uses near major sources of air pollution. The handbook includes recommended separation distances for various land uses, summarized in Table 2 -2 above. Of pertinence to this study, the CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, such as State Route 12, should be avoided when possible. This 500-foot buffer was developed to protect sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel PM and was based on traffic-related studies that showed a 70 percent drop in PM concentrations at a distance of 500 feet from the roadway. Presumably, acute and chronic risks as well as lifetime cancer risk due to diesel PM exposure are lowered proportionately. The Project Site is located 1,360 feet from State Route 12; thus, it is located outside the CARB-recommended buffer area. The CARB guidelines indicate that siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard should be avoided when possible. Although there is no such rail yard characteristic of the CARB guideline in the Project Site vicinity, the applicable rail yard buffer is conservatively applied to the vicinity commuter railway corridor.

The Project Site is located 1,670 feet from this commuter railway corridor; thus , it is located outside the CARB-recommended buffer area for major service and maintenance rail yards. Additionally, CARB recommends a buffer for new sensitive land use siting of 300 feet for any dry -cleaning operation and 50 feet for typical gas dispensin g facilities. The closest dry -cleaning facility and gas station are located 2,780 feet and 1,860 feet away from the Project Site, respectively. The Project Site is therefore located outside of any applicable CARB buffers meant to protect new sensitive land uses from air pollutants. 406
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 22 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

3.0 GREEENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low -frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower -frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is ins tead trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO 2, methane (CH4), and N2O. Fluorinated gases
also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride; however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. More specifically, experts agree that human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850– 1900 in 2011–2020. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2023).

Table 3 -1 describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties, primary sources, and contributions to the greenhouse effect.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH
4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO 2, and N 2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO 2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and HAPs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on m ultiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO
2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered
by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms. Despite the sequestration of CO 2, human- caused climate change is already causing damaging effects, including weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe (IPCC 2023).
407
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 23 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 3-1. Summary of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse
Gas Description
CO2
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources.

A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO 2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1
CH4
Methane is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (intestinal fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH 4 to the atmosphere. Natural
sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years.2
N2O
Nitrous oxide is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N 2O is also produced naturally
from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3 Sources: 1USEPA 2016a; 2USEPA 2016b; 3USEPA 2016c
The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; it is sufficient to say the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global ave rage temperature or to global, local, or microclimates. As such, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

3.2 Regulatory Framework

3.2.1 Federal

3.2.1.1 EPA Climate Change Guidance for National Environmental Policy Act Reviews On February 19, 2021, Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland issued Secretarial Order (SO) 3399 to prioritize action on climate change throughout the Department and to restore transparency and integrity in the Department’s decision-making processes. SO 3399 specifies that when considering the impact of GHG emissions from a proposed action, Bureaus/Offices should use appropriate tools, methodologies, and resources available to quantify GHG emissions and compare GHG quantities across alternatives. SO 3399 acknowledges that identifying the interactions between climate change and the environmental impacts of a proposed action in NEPA documents can help decision makers identify opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, improve environmental outcomes, and contribute to protecting communities from the climate crisis. On January 9, 2023, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued the NEPA Guidance on 408
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 24 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Consideration of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change. This guidance states that NEPA reviews should quantify proposed actions' GHG emissions, convey the GHG emissions in appropriate context , disclose relevant climate and social impacts, and consider alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce GHG emissions. CEQ encourages agencies to consider mitigation of GHG emissions to the greatest reasonable extent, and ensure that all measures are consistent with national, science based GHG reduction policies established to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment
Currently, there are no thresholds of significance established by the USEPA by which to evaluate p rojects under NEPA . Furthermore , at the federal level, there are no standards or regulations regarding GHG emissions. Notably, t he recent guidance issued by the CEQ encourages thorough GHG analyses, quantification of proposed GHG emissions, disclo sure of potential impacts, and consideration of any relevant GHG reduction measures. Although there are no specific standards or thresholds to compare the Proposed Project GHG emissions to, it is nevertheless imperative to provide information on the Project's GHG implications and provide careful consideration of the GHG reduction measures to facilitate informed decision-making. As such, this evaluation of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions is provided for disclosure purposes.

3.3.1 Methodology
Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, version 202 2.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction generated GHG emissions were primarily calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for Solano County. Operational GHG emissions calculations employed information provided by the Project Site Plan, such as the number of residential units and parking spaces.

3.3.2 Impact Analysis

3.3.2.1 Project-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project Site, and off -road construction equipment (e.g., cranes, excavators). Table 3 -2 illustrates the specific GHG emissions that would result from the implementation of the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

409
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 25 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 3-2. Project Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Construction – Calendar Year One 505
Construction – Calendar Year Two 108
Total 613
Sources: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs Notes: Construction emissions account for the demolition of the existing 51 units on the Project Site that have been or will soon be deemed uninhabitable.

As shown in Table 3-2, the Project would result in the generation of a total of approximately 613 metric tons of CO 2e over the course of construction . Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions will cease. Furthermore, GHG emissions generated by the construction equipment sector have been declining in recent years. For instance, construction equipment engine efficiency has continued to improve year after year. The first federal standards (Tier 1) for new off-road diesel engines were adopted in 1994 for engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in from 1996 to 2000. In 1996, a Statement of Principles pertaining to off-road diesel engines was signed between the USEPA, CARB, and engine makers (including Caterpillar, Cummins, Deere, Detroit Diesel, Deutz, Isuzu, Komatsu, Kubota, Mitsubishi, Navistar, New Holland, Wis -Con, and Yanmar). On August 27, 1998, the USEPA signed the final r ule reflecting the provisions of the Statement of Principles. The 1998 regulation introduced Tier 1 standards for equipment under 50 hp and increasingly more stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for all equipment with phase -in schedules from 2000 to 2008. As a result, all off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2006 or later has been manufactured to Tier 3 standards. Tier 3 engine standards reduce precursor and subset GHG emissions such as nitrogen oxide by as much as 60 percent. On May 11, 2004, the USEPA signed the final rule introducing Tier 4 emission standards, which were phased in over the period of 2008 -2015.

The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of nitrogen oxide be further reduced by about 90 percent. All off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2015 or later will be manufactured to Tier 4 standards. The equipment used in the Project’s implementation would likely reflect the improved engine efficiency trends.

As previously described, the Project would result in approximately 613 metric tons of CO 2e over the course
of the Project’s construction. It is important to acknowledge that GHG emissions have a cumulative impact on global climate change. Presently, climate change has already prompted damaging effects, manifested through extreme weather events and climatic anomalies across the globe, posing considerable risks to vulnerable populations. However, the Proposed Project’s contribution to global climate change is minimal, if not negligible. As such, the Project’s construction GHG emissions would not exert a significant impact on global climate change.

Long-term operational GHG emissions attributable to the Project are identified in Table 3-3. 410
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 26 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Mobile 498
Area 1
Energy 115
Water 7
Waste 22
Refrigerants 0
Total Operational Emissions 643
Sources: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs Notes: Operational emissions account for default daily trips determined by CalEEMod defaults.

As shown in Table 3-3 Project operations would result in the increased generation of 643metric tons of CO2e per year.

As previously described, there are no thresholds of significance specific to GHG emissions established by the USEPA by which to evaluate projects under NEPA. Furthermore, at the federal level, there are no standards or regulations regarding GHG emissions. The local air quality agency regulating the SFBAAB, including the Project Site, is the BAAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. The BAAQMD recently approved the BAAQMD 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. These guidelines present a project -level operational threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on adherence to a suite of BAAQMD performance standards for land uses projects directly related to building design, transportation and energy efficiency or compli ance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.

BAAQMD has developed the BAAQMD performance standards for land uses projects based on typical residential and commercial land use projects and typical long -term communitywide planning documents such as general plans and similar long -range development plans. According to the BAAQMD, these performance standards may not be appropriate for other types of projects that do not fit into the mold of a typical residential or commercial project or general plan update (BAA QMD 2023). The BAAQMD states that lead agencies should keep this point in mind when evaluating other types of projects (BAAQMD 2023).

The Proposed Project is an affordable, multistory housing development; it is noted that such development generates less GHG emissions than conventional residential neighborhoods, a primary goal of the BAAQMD Guidelines. For instance, the Project Site is located within a half mile of the Suisun -Fairfield Amtrak stop as well as nine bus stops making alternative transportation methods easily accessible for residents on the Project Site. The Proposed Project is relatively compact, consisting of 96 affordable units and 121 parking spaces on approximately 2.5 acres. These Project factors could help minimize urban sprawl and preserve natural areas, reducing the need for extensive road networks and other infrastructure. The Project is considered “infill development” as it proposes to redevelop a built-out property and enhance the physical design of the urban environment. Under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21061.3, an “infill site” is defined as a site that “has been previously developed for qualified urban uses.” In turn, a “qualified urban use” is defined, pursuant to PRC section 21072, as “a residential, commercial, or public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” According to the USEPA, 411
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 27 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

infill development can reduce development pressure on outlying areas and when it occurs near existing transit infrastructure, employment centers, and other destinations, it can help reduce the amount that people drive, thus improving air quality and reduci ng GHG emissions (USEPA 2014). Redevelopments such as the Project (namely at brownfield sites) produce 32 to 57 percent less emissions per capita relative to conventional developments according to the USEPA ( USEPA no date); this is because the number of da ily vehicle trips and daily vehicle miles traveled associated with the redevelopment tend to be lower compared with development on vacant land. For these reasons, t he Proposed Project would generate less GHG emissions than conventional residential neighborhoods. As such, the Project’s GHG emissions would not exert a significant impact on global climate change.

The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) has developed estimates of the social cost of GHGs (SC -GHG) (IWG 2021). The SC -GHG is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with adding an amount of that GHG to the atmosphere in a given year. In principle, it includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from increased flood risk natural disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. Discount rates are used to account for the present value of future costs. Using a low discount rate increases the present value of future costs, whereas using a high discount rate decreases the present value of future costs.

Per the recommendation of the IWG, Project GHG emission cost estimates are provided in Table 3-4 for a

2.5 percent discount rate.

412
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 28 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

Table 3-4. Social Cost of Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG Cost per Metric
Ton
Metric Tons Cost
Construction
CO2 / $83 607 $50,381
CH4 / $2,200 0.025 $55
N2O / $30,000 0.015 $450
Total Construction Cost $50,886
Operations
CO2 / $83 614 $50,962
CH4 / $2,200 0.78 $1,716
N2O / $30,000 0.03 $900
Total Annual Operations
Cost $53,578
Lifetime
CO2 19,027 $1,579,241
CH4 23.4 $51,480
N2O 0.9 $27,000
Total Project Lifetime
Cost $1,657,721
Sources: Social Cost of GHG emissions from IWG 2021
Notes: Construction and operations costs based social cost values for 2025. Lifetime costs include construction emissions and 30 years of 2025 operational emissions.

As shown, the Project would result in a SC-GHG of up to $1,657,721 over its lifetime (considered to be 30 years).

The proposed low-income housing Project aims to redevelop a site currently occupied by condemned and soon-to-be condemned housing units. This redevelopment brings several significant benefits that align with broader environmental, social, and economic goals, while also ensuring that the Project's contribution to climate change remains minimal. First, the Project addresses a critical need for affordable housing in the region. By providing 96 units of low-income housing, the Project helps alleviate housing shortages, reduce homelessness, and support economically disadvantaged families. This contributes to social equity and stability within the community. Next, redeveloping condemned housing into modern, energy-efficient units significantly improves the living conditions for residents. This can lead to better health outcomes, reduced utility costs, and an enhanced quality of life for the occupants. The constructio n and operation of the new housing complex could stimulate local economic activity, create jobs, and increase property values in the surrounding area. This revitalization of the community can have long -term positive impacts on the local 413
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 29 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

economy. The Project would transform a blighted area into an operational residential community, contributing to the reduction of urban decay. This redevelopment reduces the likelihood of illegal activities, improves public safety, and fosters a more sustainable urban environment. Modern construction practices and the California B uilding Codes emphasize energy efficiency and sustainability. The new housing units are likely to incorporate energy-efficient appliances, insulation, and HVAC systems, reducing overall energy consumption and associated GHG emissions compared to the older, condemned structures. Lastly, b y focusing on redevelopment within an existing urban area, the P roject avoids contributing to urban sprawl, which is associated with higher GHG emissions due to increased transportation needs and loss of green spaces. Compact development is more sustainable and aligns with smart growth principles.

While the Project would result in some GHG emissions during construction and operation, these emissions are not expected to be substantial when considered in the broader context of regional and global climate change. Several factors support this conclusion. Namely, the scale of the Project means that the overall GHG emissions are relatively modest compared to larger developments or industrial projects. The emissions generated are not likely to significantly contribute to global GHG levels. The benefits of p roviding sustainable, affordable housing outweigh the modest emissions associated with the P roject. By addressing social needs in an environmentally responsible manner, the Project contributes to long-term sustainability goals.

414
Almond Gardens Apartments Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. 30 August 2024
Almond Gardens Apartment Project 2024-182

4.0 REFERENCES
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2024. Stationary Source Screening Map. _____. 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.
_____. 2013. Health Effects. http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2024. Air Quality Data Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.
_____. 2022. State and Federal Area Designation Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. _____. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

City of Suisun City. 2021. Code of Ordinances, Title 12 – Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places (12.03.020 – Definitions).
_____. 2015. Volume 2 of Suisun City 2035 General Plan: Chapter 12 – Land Use.

IWG (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government). 2021.

Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2023. Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2024. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book).
_____. 2023. De Minimis Tables. https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-tables _____. 2016a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.
_____. 2016b. Methane. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. _____. 2016c. Nitrous Oxide. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html. _____. 2014. Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-06/documents/developer-infill-paper-508b.pdf. _____. 1994. Guidance on the General Conformity Regulations. ——. No Date. Brownfields Program Economic and Environmental Program. 415

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality Emissions and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

416

ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

417
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
1 / 54
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
418
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
2 / 54

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
419
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
3 / 54

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

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

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
420
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
4 / 54

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

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation
421
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
5 / 54

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

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. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
422
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
6 / 54

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
423
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
7 / 54

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Almond Gardens Proposed
Construction Start Date 3/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 5.70
Precipitation (days) 39.2
Location 38.24064931917306, -122.03569848536112
County Solano-San Francisco
City Suisun City
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 877
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26

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
Apartments Mid
Rise

96.0 Dwelling Unit 2.53 94,607 0.00 — 271 —
424
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
8 / 54
Parking Lot 121 Space 1.09 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

3.19 1000sqft 0.07 0.00 0.00 — — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

5.30 1000sqft 0.12 0.00 3,003 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

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. 8.26 31.7 30.9 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 5,452 5,452 0.22 0.11 4.52 5,473 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.24 31.7 30.8 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,455 6,455 0.27 0.50 0.18 6,611 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.36 11.5 15.5 0.02 0.46 1.15 1.61 0.43 0.37 0.80 — 3,020 3,020 0.12 0.08 1.16 3,048 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.80 2.11 2.82 < 0.005 0.08 0.21 0.29 0.08 0.07 0.15 — 500 500 0.02 0.01 0.19 505

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 425 Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
9 / 54
Y ear ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 8.26 31.7 30.9 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 5,452 5,452 0.22 0.11 4.52 5,473 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 8.24 31.7 30.8 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,455 6,455 0.27 0.50 0.18 6,611 2026 8.10 17.6 26.5 0.04 0.67 0.92 1.59 0.61 0.22 0.83 — 4,986 4,986 0.19 0.11 0.11 5,023 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.36 11.5 15.5 0.02 0.46 1.15 1.61 0.43 0.37 0.80 — 3,020 3,020 0.12 0.08 1.16 3,048 2026 1.05 2.27 3.41 0.01 0.09 0.12 0.20 0.08 0.03 0.11 — 645 645 0.02 0.01 0.23 650 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.80 2.11 2.82 < 0.005 0.08 0.21 0.29 0.08 0.07 0.15 — 500 500 0.02 0.01 0.19 505 2026 0.19 0.41 0.62 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 108

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. 5.03 1.94 19.3 0.03 0.05 2.75 2.81 0.05 0.70 0.75 44.8 3,985 4,029 4.74 0.17 12.6 4,212 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.43 2.15 13.9 0.03 0.05 2.75 2.80 0.05 0.70 0.75 44.8 3,782 3,826 4.76 0.19 0.99 4,002 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
426
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
10 / 54
Unmit. 4.55 1.97 15.1 0.03 0.05 2.55 2.60 0.05 0.65 0.70 44.8 3,663 3,707 4.74 0.17 5.58 3,883 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.83 0.36 2.75 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.12 0.13 7.42 606 614 0.78 0.03 0.92 643

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 2.13 1.55 13.8 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,268 3,268 0.15 0.15 12.0 3,328 Area 2.88 0.05 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Energy 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 690 690 0.08 0.01 — 694 Water — — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.4 19.0 0.67 0.02 — 40.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Total 5.03 1.94 19.3 0.03 0.05 2.75 2.81 0.05 0.70 0.75 44.8 3,985 4,029 4.74 0.17 12.6 4,212 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.01 1.82 13.7 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,079 3,079 0.18 0.17 0.31 3,133 Area 2.40 0.00 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 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 690 690 0.08 0.01 — 694 Water — — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.4 19.0 0.67 0.02 — 40.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Total 4.43 2.15 13.9 0.03 0.05 2.75 2.80 0.05 0.70 0.75 44.8 3,782 3,826 4.76 0.19 0.99 4,002 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
427
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
11 / 54
Mobile 1.89 1.61 12.3 0.03 0.02 2.55 2.57 0.02 0.65 0.67 — 2,953 2,953 0.16 0.15 4.91 3,007 Area 2.64 0.03 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.18 7.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.21 Energy 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 690 690 0.08 0.01 — 694 Water — — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.4 19.0 0.67 0.02 — 40.6 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Total 4.55 1.97 15.1 0.03 0.05 2.55 2.60 0.05 0.65 0.70 44.8 3,663 3,707 4.74 0.17 5.58 3,883 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.35 0.29 2.24 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 489 489 0.03 0.02 0.81 498 Area 0.48 < 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 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 114 114 0.01 < 0.005 — 115 Water — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 2.06 3.14 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.72 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.11
Total 0.83 0.36 2.75 0.01 0.01 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.12 0.13 7.42 606 614 0.78 0.03 0.92 643

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 428
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
12 / 54
Demoliti — — — — — 3.97 3.97 — 0.60 0.60 — — — — — — —
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 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.22 0.22 — 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 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 124 124 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 126 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 0.06 3.79 1.27 0.02 0.05 0.76 0.82 0.05 0.21 0.26 — 2,906 2,906 0.13 0.47 0.17 3,049 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.88 6.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.99 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 0.20 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 159 159 0.01 0.03 0.15 167 429
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
13 / 54
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 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 0.04 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 27.7

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

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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

3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
430
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
14 / 54

72.8—< 0.005< 0.00572.572.5—0.02—0.020.02—0.02< 0.0050.410.430.05Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.01 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.0 12.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 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 0.07 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.01 0.64 159 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 0.07 0.06 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 145 145 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 147 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.01 2.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 431
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
15 / 54
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 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 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. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 7.08 7.08 — 3.42 3.42 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.04 0.36 0.39 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 — 64.9 64.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 65.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 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 0.00 432
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
16 / 54
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.7 10.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 134 134 < 0.005 0.01 0.55 136 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.75 2.75 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.79 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 — 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e433 Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
17 / 54
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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

1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 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

0.57 5.25 6.56 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,206 1,206 0.05 0.01 — 1,210 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 0.96 1.20 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 200 200 0.01 < 0.005 — 200 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 0.17 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 619 619 0.01 0.02 2.54 629 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 274 274 0.01 0.04 0.74 287 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 0.00 434
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
18 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.26 0.24 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 572 572 0.02 0.02 0.07 580 Vendor 0.01 0.38 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 274 274 0.01 0.04 0.02 287 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 0.13 0.11 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.55 296 Vendor < 0.005 0.19 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.02 0.16 144 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 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 48.2 48.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 48.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.8 22.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.9 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

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

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
435
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
19 / 54
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.27 1.67 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 310 310 0.01 < 0.005 — 311 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 0.23 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 51.3 51.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 51.4 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 0.23 0.22 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 561 561 0.02 0.02 0.06 569 Vendor 0.01 0.36 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 270 270 0.01 0.04 0.02 282 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 0.03 0.03 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 73.3 73.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 74.4 Vendor < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.8 34.8 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 36.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.1 12.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.3 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.77 5.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.03 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 436
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
20 / 54
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

0.71 6.52 8.84 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.71 6.52 8.84 0.01 0.29 — 0.29 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.36 3.28 4.45 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 679 679 0.03 0.01 — 682 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.07 0.60 0.81 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 113 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
437
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
21 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.08 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 179 179 < 0.005 0.01 0.74 182 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 0.07 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 166 166 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 168 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 0.04 0.03 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 84.3 84.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 85.5 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 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.2 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

3.13. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
438
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
22 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.68 6.23 8.81 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.09 0.81 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 174 174 0.01 < 0.005 — 175 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

0.02 0.15 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.9 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.0 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 162 162 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 165 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 — 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.5439 Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
23 / 54
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.51 3.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.57 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

3.15. Architectural Coating (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

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

5.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

5.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
440
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
24 / 54
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.44 0.57 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 67.2 67.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 67.4 Architect
ural
Coatings

2.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.1 11.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.54 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 124 124 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 126 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 0.05 0.05 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 116 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 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 58.2 58.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 59.1 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 0.00 441
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
25 / 54
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.64 9.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.78 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

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

0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings

5.86 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.2 17.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.3 Architect
ural
Coatings

0.76 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
442
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
26 / 54

2.86—< 0.005< 0.0052.852.85—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.030.02< 0.005Off-Road Equipment
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 114 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 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 14.9 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — 2.43 2.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.47 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
443
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
27 / 54
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.13 1.55 13.8 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,268 3,268 0.15 0.15 12.0 3,328 Parking
Lot

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.13 1.55 13.8 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,268 3,268 0.15 0.15 12.0 3,328 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.01 1.82 13.7 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,079 3,079 0.18 0.17 0.31 3,133 Parking
Lot

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.01 1.82 13.7 0.03 0.02 2.75 2.78 0.02 0.70 0.72 — 3,079 3,079 0.18 0.17 0.31 3,133 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
444
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
28 / 54
4980.810.020.03489489—0.120.12< 0.0050.470.47< 0.0050.012.240.290.35Apartme nts
Mid Rise
Parking
Lot

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.35 0.29 2.24 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 0.47 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 — 489 489 0.03 0.02 0.81 498

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 242 242 0.04 < 0.005 — 245
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 268
445
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
29 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 242 242 0.04 < 0.005 — 245
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 23.2 23.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.5
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 266 266 0.04 0.01 — 268
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 40.1 40.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 40.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.84 3.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.88
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 44.0 44.0 0.01 < 0.005 — 44.4

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 446
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
30 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 424 424 0.04 < 0.005 — 426 Parking
Lot

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 424 424 0.04 < 0.005 — 426 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 424 424 0.04 < 0.005 — 426 Parking
Lot

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 424 424 0.04 < 0.005 — 426 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
< 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 70.3 70.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 70.5 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 — 0.00 447
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
31 / 54
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 70.3 70.3 0.01 < 0.005 — 70.5

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 Consum
er
Products

2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.48 0.05 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Total 2.88 0.05 5.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 14.6 14.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

2.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
448
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
32 / 54
Architect
Coatings

0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Products

0.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings

0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.04 < 0.005 0.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 Total 0.48 < 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

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.3 18.9 0.67 0.02 — 40.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
449
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
33 / 54
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.4 19.0 0.67 0.02 — 40.6 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.3 18.9 0.67 0.02 — 40.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.10 Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.53 12.4 19.0 0.67 0.02 — 40.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 1.08 2.04 3.12 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.70
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 Total — — — — — — — — — — 1.08 2.06 3.14 0.11 < 0.005 — 6.72

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
450
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
34 / 54

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 38.3 0.00 38.3 3.83 0.00 — 134 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
451
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
35 / 54
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — 6.34 0.00 6.34 0.63 0.00 — 22.2

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.68 0.68
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
452
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
36 / 54

0.110.11———————————————Apartme
nts
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.11 0.11

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 453
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
37 / 54
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 454
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
38 / 54
—————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
455
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
39 / 54
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
456
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
40 / 54

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/1/2025 3/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/30/2025 4/6/2025 5.00 5.00 — Grading Grading 4/7/2025 4/18/2025 5.00 8.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 4/19/2025 3/7/2026 5.00 230 — Paving Paving 4/19/2025 3/7/2026 5.00 230 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/19/2025 3/7/2026 5.00 230 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 457 Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
41 / 54
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 41.3 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
458
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
42 / 54
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 69.1 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 13.8 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 191,579 63,860 0.00 0.00 3,356
459
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
43 / 54

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic
Y ards)
Material Exported (Cubic
Y ards)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,300 —
Site Preparation — — 7.50 0.00 —
Grading — — 8.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.28

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Parking Lot 1.09 100%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.07 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.12 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
460
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
44 / 54

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
522 471 393 181,207 3,910 3,529 2,939 1,356,558
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
461
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
45 / 54
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
191579.175 63,860 0.00 0.00 3,356

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 433,710 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,324,079 Parking Lot 41,555 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 3,409,042 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 36,721
462
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
46 / 54

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 71.1 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

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

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor 463
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
47 / 54

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. 464
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
48 / 54
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.95 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.72 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
465
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
49 / 54

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 22.3
AQ-PM 16.1
AQ-DPM 5.03
Drinking Water 58.6
Lead Risk Housing 26.6
466
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
50 / 54
Pesticides 22.4
Toxic Releases 62.6
Traffic 38.0
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 73.4
Groundwater 90.2
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 98.5
Impaired Water Bodies 96.3
Solid Waste 97.8
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 95.5
Cardio-vascular 88.0
Low Birth Weights 32.3
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 54.1
Housing 26.2
Linguistic 14.9
Poverty 41.2
Unemployment 35.0

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 65.35352239
Employed 24.27819838
Median HI 66.68805338
Education —
467
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
51 / 54
Bachelor's or higher 54.3308097
High school enrollment 25.92069806
Preschool enrollment 7.686385218
Transportation —
Auto Access 41.51161299
Active commuting 39.58680867
Social —
2-parent households 19.20954703
Voting 51.59758758
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 65.36635442
Park access 59.93840626
Retail density 6.685486975
Supermarket access 37.4566919
Tree canopy 60.69549596
Housing —
Homeownership 47.45284229
Housing habitability 59.66893366
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 65.31502631 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 51.67457975
Uncrowded housing 44.45014757
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 57.24368023
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 7.7
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
468
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
52 / 54
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 65.7
Cognitively Disabled 72.6
Physically Disabled 96.1
Heart Attack ER Admissions 17.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 61.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 12.3
Children 58.1
Elderly 66.9
English Speaking 78.5
Foreign-born 55.4
Outdoor Workers 47.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 39.8
Traffic Density 34.4
469
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
53 / 54
Traffic Access 46.2
Other Indices —
Hardship 47.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 48.4

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 67.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 48.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Building square footage updated to match site plan. Other asphalt surfaces account for the two picnic areas, sidewalks, and the play area. Other non-asphalt surfaces account for the bio retention areas and landscaping for the whole project site. 470
Almond Gardens Proposed Detailed Report, 8/19/2024
54 / 54
Operations: Hearths Site plans of units do not include fireplaces or wood burning stoves.

Construction: Construction Phases Reasonable to assume that paving and architectural coating overlap with building construction and happen simultaneously.
471
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Solano County, California
Local oce
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Oce
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 1/20472 Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 2/20473 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 3/20474

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians

NAME STATUS
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/613
Endangered

NAME STATUS
California Least Tern Sternula antillarum browni
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104
Endangered
California Ridgway''s Rail Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4240
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Threatened
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 4/20475 Insects
Crustaceans
Flowering Plants
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta conservatio
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8246
Endangered
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Contra Costa Goldelds Lasthenia conjugens
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7058
Endangered
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 5/20476 Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have eects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
Santa Cruz Tarplant Holocarpha macradenia
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6832
Threatened
Soft Bird's-beak Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8541
Endangered
Suisun Thistle Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2369
Endangered
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats, should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

Additional information can be found using the following links:
1 2
3 8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 6/20477 There are likely bald eagles present in your project area. For additional information on bald eagles, refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ()
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation- measures.pdf
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 7/20478 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Eort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 8/20479

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specied location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specied location?
The M igratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development.

Again, the M igratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Oce if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
1 2
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 9/20480 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take- migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/les/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and- golden-eagles-may-occur-project-action
3 NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 10/20481 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 11/20482 Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8350
Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 15
Nuttall's Woodpecker Dryobates nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Santa Barbara Song Sparrow M elospiza melodia graminea
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5513
Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 5
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds elsewhere
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 12/20483 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Western Gull Larus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Apr 21 to Aug 25
Western Screech-owl M egascops kennicottii cardonensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 1 to Jun 30
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9726
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 13/20484 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 14/20485 Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Northern
Harrier

BCC - BCR
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Santa Barbara
Song Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tricolored
Blackbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 15/20486 Western Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Western
Screech-owl

BCC - BCR
Willet
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Yellow-billed
Magpie
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation M easures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specied location?
The M igratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

Again, the M igratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 16/20487 The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the proles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
M igratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical M odeling and Predictive M apping of M arine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. M odels relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 17/20488 If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your M igratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.

On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no sh hatcheries at this location.
8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 18/20489 Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

This location did not intersect any wetlands mapped by NWI.

NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on-site delineation to determine whether wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. M etadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. 8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 19/20490 Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. 8/16/24, 11:58 AM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/D3PXUPLN4JERBDDK2RBDJQQBHE/resources#migratory-birds 20/20491 Architectural History Evaluation
for the
Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
Solano County, California
Prepared For:

Rusty Leach
Kingdom Development
6451 Box Springs Boulevard
Riverside, California 92507
Prepared By:

2525 Warren Drive
Rocklin, California 95677
August 2024
492
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
i
August 2024
2024-182

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Rusty Leach of Kingdom Development retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) in 2024 to conduct an architectural history evaluation of Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street, Suisun City, Solano County, California. For the purposes of this report, the property boundaries of the 3.72-acre Almond Gardens Apartments (Assessor Parcel Number 0032-101-420 and 0032-102-160) will serve as the Project Area. Within the Project Area exists the Almond Gardens Apartments complex. The Almond Gardens Apartments complex was constructed circa 1967, which means the buildings exceed the age threshold (older than 50 years) to be considered cultural resources. ECORP was tasked with evaluating the buildings for historical significance. Consequently, this study was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800, for the evaluation of a historic-age building. The evaluation was prepared pursuant to Suisun City requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The architectural history evaluation included a records search of the property with the Northwest Information Center; a visit to the property to document the current condition of the buildings; focused archival and historical research; and an evaluation of the buildings using California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Suisun City does not currently have its own official register of historic properties.

ECORP evaluated Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street and found that this resource, composed of all the buildings, does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, either individually or as part of an existing historic district. Following the archival research, a 2024 field survey, and evaluations of the property, ECORP determined that the buildings are not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. Therefore, there are no Historic Property’s for the purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or Historical Resources for the purposes of CEQA. Recommendations for the management of unanticipated discoveries are provided.

493
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
ii
August 2024
2024-182

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location and Description.................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Report Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Local Historic Context: Suisun City ............................................................................................................... 4

2.2 Public Housing Context .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Housing Programs in the United States and California ...................................................... 6

2.2.2 Public Housing as Public Works ................................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Public Housing in World War II .................................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Public Housing After 1949 .............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.5 Architectural Theme: Ranch Style of Architecture ................................................................. 9

2.2.6 Property Development History .................................................................................................. 10

3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Personnel Qualifications ................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 Records Search Methods .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Archival Research Methods .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Suisun City Building Department .............................................................................................. 11

3.3.2 Fairfield Civic Center Library ....................................................................................................... 12

3.3.3 Historical Newspaper Review ..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.4 Historical Aerial Photographs ..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.5 Built Environment Resources Directory .................................................................................. 12

3.3.6 The Solano County Historical Society ..................................................................................... 12

3.3.7 Solano County Assessor ............................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Field Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 12

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................. 13

4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................ 13

4.1.2 California Environmental Quality Act....................................................................................... 14

5.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

5.1 Records Search Results .................................................................................................................................. 15

5.1.1 Other Sources of Information ..................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Site Visit Results ................................................................................................................................................ 17

5.2.1 Almond Gardens Apartments Building Description .......................................................... 21

6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 494
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
iii
August 2024
2024-182

7.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Project Aerial Map ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Overview of 707 Almond Street (view southwest; August 20, 2024). ........................................................ 18 Figure 4. Overview of Almond Street Buildings (view south; August 20, 2024). ...................................................... 18 Figure 5. Overview of 804 Almond Street (view northwest; August 20, 2024). ........................................................ 19 Figure 6. Overview of Almond Street (view west; August 20, 2024). ............................................................................ 19 Figure 7. Overview of Almond Street Buildings (view northwest; August 20, 2024). ............................................. 20 Figure 8. Overview of 710 Almond Street (view northwest; August 20, 2024). ........................................................ 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ...................................................................... 15 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ........................................ 16

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Field Visit Photographs
Appendix B – Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
AMI Area Median Income
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
ECORP ECORP Consulting, Inc.

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
495
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
iv
August 2024
2024-182

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
Project Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street Project FEAPW Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

496
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
1 August 2024
2024-182

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Rusty Leach of Kingdom Development retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) in 2024 to conduct an architectural history evaluation of the property at Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street, Suisun City, Solano County, California. The historic-age Almond Gardens Apartments property was constructed circa 1967, and the property is now owned by the Suisun City Housing Authority.

Consequently, this study was conducted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800, for the evaluation of a historic-age buildings. The evaluation was prepared pursuant to Suisun City requirements under CEQA.

1.1 Project Location and Description
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is located at the western end of Suisun City. It is located within the 1985 Fairfield South, California, U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figures 1 and 2). The property is set south of State Route 12 and north of the Suisun Slough. The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) associated with the property are 0032-101-420 and 0032- 102-160.

The Proposed Project Area consists of the Almond Gardens Apartments property on approximately 3.72 acres located at 707-815 Almond Street in Suisun City (APNs 0032-101-420 and 0032-102-160). Kingdom Development proposes construction of 96 affordable housing units for low-income families plus one manager unit for on-site property management at the site of Almond Gardens Apartments. The proposed project will target low-income families earning 30 to 50 percent of Area Median Income The unit mix includes 58 two-bedroom units, 30 three-bedroom units, and 10 four -bedroom units with community gathering space and outdoor recreational amenities.

1.2 Regulatory Context
To meet the regulatory requirements of this Project, this architectural history evaluation was conducted pursuant to compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] §21000 et seq.). The goal of CEQA is to develop and maintain a high-quality environment that serves to identify the significant environmental effects of the actions of a Proposed Project and to either avoid or mitigate those significant effects where feasible. CEQA pertains to all proposed projects that require state or local government agency approval, including the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of development project maps.

CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Article 5, § 15064.5) applies to cultural resources of the historical and prehistoric periods. Any project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a cultural resource, either directly or indirectly, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, such a project would require avoidance or mitigation of impacts to those affected resources.

497
Project Area
Map Date: 8/21/2024
Sources: ESRI, USGSLocation: N:\2024\Proposals_2024\P24-454 Almond Garden Apartments\MAPS\Location_Vicinity\AGA LnV.aprx - AGA LnV 20240821 (kedwards - 8/21/2024) Fairfield South (1949 p.r. 1985, NAD 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.

Solano County, California
Unsectioned Wetlands Land Grant
Latitude (NAD83): 38.240575°
Longitude (NAD83): -122.035669°
Watershed: Suisun Bay (18050001)
I
0 1,000 2,000
Scale in Feet
2024-182 Almond Gardens Apartments Project at 707-815 Almond Street Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Project Area - 3.72 ac.
498
Lotz Way
Josia h C ir
Driftwood D r
Alm ond S t
Ba y St
Civic Center Blvd
Port
St
Day Park
Lotz Way
Jos iah C ir
Dr iftwoo d Dr
Almond St
Whisper
ing Bay Ln
Bay S t
Todd Park
Map Date: 8/22/2024
Sources: ESRI, Maxar (2022)Location: N:\2024\2024-182 Almond Garden Apartments\MAPS\Aerial_Maps\AGA Aerials.aprx - Almond Gardens Apartments Aerial 20240822 (lgalvez - 8/22/2024) Map Contents
Project Area - 3.72 ac.

I
0 200
Feet
2024-182 Almond Gardens Apartments Project at 707-815 Almond Street Figure 2. Project Aerial Map
499
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
4 August 2024
2024-182

The principal federal law addressing historic properties is the NHPA, as amended (54 United States Code of Laws 300101 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 requires a federal agency with jurisdiction over a proposed federal action (referred to as an “undertaking” under the NHPA) to take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The t erm “historic properties” refers to “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register” (36 CFR Part 800.16(l)(1)). The implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) describe the process for identifying and evaluating historic properties, for assessing the potential adverse effects of federal undertakings on historic properties, and seeking to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The Section 106 process does not require the preservation of historic properties; instead, it is a procedural requirement mandating that federal agencies take into account effects to historic properties from an undertaking prior to approval.

1.3 Report Organization
The following report documents the architectural history evaluation of the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street in Suisun City and was prepared in conformance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) acceptable format. Appendix A presents photographs of the Project Area.

Appendix B contains the cultural resources Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 record for the building.

2.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
The following historical context provides a frame of reference for evaluating Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street’s eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The context includes a local history of Suisun City and additional context on public housing and Ranch style architecture.

2.1 Local Histor ic Context : Suisun City
What would become known as Suisun City was initially called Suisun (named for a Patwin village or triblet). The name has appeared in Spanish records since 1807, although it was sometimes spelled Suysun.

Suisun City was established to take advantage of this location near waterways and became the trade center for central Solano County. By the mid-1850s, various structures had been constructed in the new city. Suisun City prospered in the latter half of the 19th century and in 1868, the California Pacific Railroad commenced passenger service from Vallejo to Suisun. Three years later, the Central Pacific train acquired the California Pacific, giving Suisun City shippers access to distant markets via the transcontinental train. In 1880, the city had a population of 600 (Suisun City 2023).

Fruit agriculture prospered in the Suisun Valley from 1880 to 1920, thanks to the advent of large -scale drying, canning, and refrigerated railcars. Suisun thrived due to its convenient access to transportation by train and seaport. Dairy farming took place on reclaimed marshland near the city, while the Pacific Portland Cement Company's cement factories contributed to the local economy (Suisun City 2023). 500
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
5 August 2024
2024-182

In the early 20th century, business activity in Fairfield began to overshadow Suisun. The new state route through Solano County skipped Suisun City and instead traveled via Fairfield, contributing to this phenomenon. By 1920, Fairfield had a population of 1,000, surpassing Suisun City's population of 875 (Suisun City 2023).

Suisun City was a maritime and financial powerhouse for decades, but the Great Depression caused local hardship. The weakening national fruit market led to the closure of numerous local canneries and drying plants. After World War II, Fairfield further overtook Suisun City as the leading municipality in central Solano County as the economy recovered. Travis Air Force Base, located between Fairfield, Vacaville, and Suisun City, created several new career opportunities in the Fairfield-Suisun region. Although the national fruit market recovered after the Great Depression, no major canneries reopened in the region (Suisun City 2023; San Francisco Chronicle 1999).

Trucking industry in northern California and Solano County was increased by bridge building in the Bay Area during the 1930s and the upgrading of U.S. Highway 40 through Fairfield into a modern, multi -lane highway during the 1960s (now Interstate 80). These investments harmed Suisun City's waterway shipping industry. The Suisun City port lost its position as a key shipping terminal for the local agricultural sector. It is now mostly used as a recreational boat launch. Since the 1990s, Suisun has experienced various residential, commercial, and harbor revitalization, but has seen limited population growth (Kitsap Sun 2002).

2.2 Public Housing Context
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is a typical example of a 1960s era public housing complex in the United States. The federal public housing program grew out of a succession of substantial government programs launched in the 1930s to address the converging issues of unemployment, rising slums, and insufficient housing during the Great Depression. During World War II, further government programs in the early 1940s provided accommodation for military sector personnel and their families in congested production locations. These projects include roughly 125,000 housing units and are in the inventory of nearly 250 local Public Housing Authorities in 39 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The time under discussion begins with the Public Works Administration's house building program, which was launched as an unemployment alleviation initiative under the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. This initiative prompted the enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1937, which created the notion of government payments to local public housing authority and laid the groundwork for the modern program. The backdrop report continues with a description of the key government housing projects throughout World War II and closes with enactment of the United States Housing Act of 1949.

This act reinstated federal support to local housing authorities after public housing had withered in the early postwar period. The 1949 Act linked public housing building to urban redevelopment, helping to resettle residents displaced by federally supported construction and transportation projects. It also marked the beginning of a new period of public housing building, which was commonly distinguished in bigger urban centers by massive high-rise projects completed in the 1950s and 1960s. 501
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
6 August 2024
2024-182

2.2.1 Housing Programs in the United States and California Prior to the 1930s, the federal government was withdrawn from the housing dispute. Its responsibility in ensuring the social welfare of its residents was limited, with the idea that local governments and private organizations would handle such concerns. Nonetheless, the demand for adequate housing remained critical. Since the mid-19th century, state, local, and private housing efforts have neither alleviated the horrible living conditions in the slums nor significantly increased the availability of acceptab le new dwellings accessible to the poor.

Despite their best efforts, housing reformers were unable to persuade the federal government of the 1920s to implement any kind of housing policy, whether through private market regulation or the construction of public tenements. The federal government was too rich to seriously explore low-income housing projects. Following World War I, the federal government handed over responsibility for housing policy to the states.

In 1921, the California state government passed the Veterans Farm and Home Purchase Act to aid troops returning from World War I. The state issued $10 million in bonds to establish a revolving fund that allows veterans and their widows to borrow up to 95 percent of the cost of a new home or farm at 5 percent interest (Schaffter 1942) The repayment of the fund by qualified veterans guaranteed that taxpayers would not support the program, preventing housing from becoming a public burden. One politician proudly claimed that the program was "self-sustaining and free of any element of charity, while developing substantial law-abiding, home-owning citizens." On the eve of the Great Depression, housing reform had reached a tipping point. State and local governments had plainly proved their inability to provide suitable housing for the poor, and the federal government refused to fill the hole. Private developers, no matter how well-intentioned, were unable to construct adequate homes at a price that the poor could pay. In 1931, Edith Elmer Wood voiced the aspiration of many housing reformers when she asked for a "major statesman to make housing on the grand scale the chief plank in his platform. (Wood 1931)." Their dreams were realized only after the federal government intervened due to the Great Depression's crippling economic conditions.

2.2.2 Public Housing as Public Works
As economic collapse decimated house ownership and the residential building sector, the Great Depression refocused attention on housing market disparities and America's cities' smoldering slum issues. Housing development has rapidly declined since the late 1920s, reaching a low of 93,000 units by 1933, a full 90 percent decrease from the record high in 1925 (Rowe 1993). Fourteen million Americans were jobless, one-third of them were in the building professions, and 273,000 families lost their houses to mortgage foreclosure in 1933 alone (Fish 1979). People moved out of nicer, less cheap homes added to the congestion in dying inner-city districts. The already dilapidated housing stock available to the poor deteriorated as property owners neglected maintenance, and new building came to a near halt. Migrants from farms and small towns aggravated the slum problem by crowding into cities in search of jobs or government assistance.
502
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
7 August 2024
2024-182

Congress acted fast on President Franklin D. Roosevelt's request, approving the National Industrial Recovery Act in June 1933. Title II of this legislation set aside $3.3 billion for the establishment of the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (FEAPW) to perform "massive work relief activities quickly." Senator Wagner kept his word and authorized the FEAPW to include "construction... under public regulation or control of low-cost housing and slum clearance" on its list of projects. To that goal, the FEAPW might issue loans to limited-distribution businesses, award grants to state or municipal governments, or construct projects on its own.

Title II allocated an extra $25 million to create a Division of Subsistence Homesteads to construct rural settlements and redistribute the "overbalance of population in industrial centers” (Hutchmacher 1968).

The Division of Subsistence Homesteads had initiated 50 communities when it was incorporated by the Resettlement Administration in 1935, to allow for the removal of urban residents from slums or agricultural families from submarginal holdings (Conklin 1959).

With Presidential support, public housing proponents were confident in their ability to achieve a long - term federal public housing program. In November, the United States Housing Act of 1937 passed both houses of Congress by a large majority, creating a clear federal commitment to provide adequate, low- cost housing to America's urban poor. This Act established the nationally funded, locally administered public housing program that still exists today. Local communities enthusiastically supported the scheme, and over the next five years, local public housing authority completed over 370 housing developments with government subsidies.

2.2.3 Public Housing in World War II
Just as Congressional interest in public housing began to fade at the conclusion of the Great Depression, World War II offered a fresh incentive for the continuance and extension of government housing projects.

Industrial capacity rose dramatically, both in traditional manufacturing areas like Chicago and Detroit and at new locations on the west coast and across the country. A large civilian population migrated to these areas, and the country's insufficient supply of urban housing quickly constituted a severe danger to the productive capacity of America's critical war industries. Housing for defense sector personnel and their families were as much a part of the wartime construction program as military cantonments or shipyards and factories for making weapons. In mid-1940, the federal government restarted the public housing program, but shifted its objective from housing low-income families to housing defense workers on the home front.

The prewar dispute about the appropriateness of direct government home development was rapidly revived. Although public housing supporters welcomed their new position in the nation's military effort, they worked to ensure that the war would not jeopardize their long-term aim of establishing a sustainable low-cost public housing program. They urged the federal government to delegate planning and management responsibilities for defense housing to the United States Housing Authority and its vast network of local housing officials, allowing them to benefit from the pre-war housing program's experience while also ensuring its continuation after the war. They also advocated for the development of strong, well-designed defensive housing projects that could be easily converted to low -rent usage after the war to address the projected postwar housing crisis. 503
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
8 August 2024
2024-182

Private industry and its congressional backers, on the other hand, continued to strongly oppose public housing. They said that only the private sector could provide the speed and efficiency required to satisfy the urgent need for defense housing. They advocated that the government's efforts should focus on loans and mortgage guarantees to assist private building. Public development should be confined to transitory, low-cost lodgings that provide little competition in the postwar housing market. The effectiv eness of this argument against government-built defense housing significantly constrained the scope of the public housing program during the war, delaying its restart for many years thereafter.

2.2.4 Public Housing After 1949
With postwar affluence at sight, proponents of public housing faced a lengthy struggle in Congress before ensuring its survival. Despite its naysayers, public housing has become a vital aspect of federal housing policy and is still being developed in the United States today. Public housing built in the United States after 1949 illustrates shifts in design, architectural philosophy, and public policy. The architecture of later public housing differs significantly from that of earlier public housing. The huma nizing scale of previous complexes, which was achieved by putting low-rise structures in carefully landscaped settings, was replaced with high-rise skyscrapers situated in huge, open courtyards. The high-rise tower, regarded as a symbol of economic efficiency, social order, and modern architecture, supplanted the low-rise structure as the favored kind of public housing developed after 1949 (Wright 1981).

Beginning in the 1950s, numerous major public housing complexes were built across the country in an attempt to provide vast amounts of much-needed housing at a reasonable cost. Subsequent research revealed that these high-rise complexes are more expensive than their low-rise counterparts, owing to the combined expenses of obtaining inner-city property, building, and upkeep. These latter buildings had a basic, cohesive look and, due to their size and placement, stood out from their surroundings, as opposed to the previous small-scale designs, which were intended to blend in. The repetitive homogeneity of "stripped modem" external architectural features gave subsequent public housing a stern, institutional image, in contrast to previous complexes' inventive designs and more domestic nature. Later public housing complexes featured substantially higher site densities than earlier ones, with taller structures containing more apartments and a greater number of buildings per complex. Later public housing complexes' interiors also differed from previous ones, with smaller flats with fewer rooms connected by extensive hallways (Wright 1981).

These architectural modifications in subsequent public housing were paralleled by alterations in era - specific public policy. One significant feature of the policy shift was the target constituency's access to public housing. The early proponents of large-scale public housing saw their efforts as benefiting low- income wage people, black and white. A key component of the early initiatives was to foster a "sense of community" among these marginalized populations. The really poor and those at the bottom of the economic ladder were simply regarded outside the scope of such housing schemes; they would continue to be the duty of charity and social workers, police, and courts. However, by the late 1950s, the genuine potential of eradicating poverty began to shift government housing programs away from supporting only the working poor and toward serving the more economically disadvantaged portions of the metropolitan population. This transformation caused long-term social, cultural, and economic changes that impacted public housing projects.
504
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
9 August 2024
2024-182

Other changes brought about by period policies were the intensification of racial tensions as a result of heightened segregation enforcement and the start of large-scale urban regeneration initiatives in the 1950s and 1960s. Urban renewal initiatives were considered as a method to address society's faults with significant federal endeavors under the 1949 Housing Act and the 1954 Urban Renewal Act.

Unfortunately, these initiatives moved many impoverished African-American people from failing inner-city areas, adding them to nationwide waiting lists for public housing complexes. Earlier public housing complexes had a plethora of social and recreational amenities, such as nursery schools, leisure centers, and playgrounds, but subsequent complexes had less of them. Critics derisively referred to this era's public housing as "warehousing." Public housing complexes were no longer only a short reprieve for those wishing to improve their circumstances; they eventually became locations where people would spend the remainder of their lives (Wright 1981).

2.2.5 Architectural Theme: Ranch Style of Architecture
The Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street does not have a strongly discernable architectural style, but buildings within the complex features overhanging eaves, low-pitched roofs, and horizontality that is most closely associated with the Ranch style of architecture.

Ranch-style homes in California represent a national obsession with the Old West and were the preferred architectural type for tract housing. Ranch houses were first established in the western and southwestern United States, but they rapidly achieved national appeal because of the publication of do-it-yourself instructions and designs in national publications like Sunset, Better houses and Gardens, and House Beautiful. Ranch homes gained popularity as a custom-built kind of dwelling, particularly in the late 1940s and 1950s. Ranch homes were primarily built between 1930 and 1975 but peaked in the 1950s as the most common kind of post-World War II suburban tract-style housing, frequently housing veterans who obtained Federal Housing Administration loans.

Ranch style houses are typically one-story, single-family residences. This architectural style distinguishes itself with rambling, extended layouts, a horizontal focus, overall asymmetry, free -flowing internal spaces, and a deliberate connection to the outdoors. Low-pitched roofs with broad eaves, a variety of cladding materials including board-and-batten siding, brick and stone chimneys, and huge picture windows were popular features, evoking an aesthetic evocative of these earlier architectural traditions. Decorative elements like wood shutters and dovecotes were frequently installed to enhance the rusticated aspect of ranch buildings. (Grimes and Chiang 2009; Horak et al. 2015; McAlester 2013).

Character-defining features include the following:
 rambling, elongated plans with a horizontal emphasis
 one to two stories in height
 low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs with overhanging, open eaves  general asymmetry
 free-flowing interior spaces
505
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
10 August 2024
2024-182

 designed connection to the outdoors
 cladding featuring stucco, board and batten, shingles, clapboard, or a combination of materials  brick or stone chimneys details
 attached garages often linked to residence by breezeways  stone, brick, board and batten, clapboard, or horizontal wood siding used for accent on walls, secondary cladding types, and planters
 functional and non-functional shutters details as trim around windows  fenestration may include a picture window

2.2.6 Property Development History
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is outside of the coverage area of historic Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. The earliest aerial image of the area that would encompass the Almond Gardens Apartments was from 1948 and shows vacant farmland with some residential development to the west. When the complex was originally completed in the late 1960s, it only had residential development to the north and west with vacant land to the south and east which would be developed into residential and industrial buildings by the 1990s.

Since the Suisun City Building Department had no building permits for Almond Gardens Apartments and research found few articles documenting the construction and history of the subject apartments , the original architect, builder, and owner of the apartments is unknown. The Suisun City Redevelopment Agency bought these fourplexes in 1990. Instead of demolishing all the fourplexes, they underwent extensive repair. Seven of the original twenty fourplexes were demolished to make way for off-street authorized parking spots. The flats’ interiors were refurbished, and the courtyards were fenced to restore open space for residents. The apartments were redesigned with landscaping, street trees, and ornamental lamps. The building footprint and configuration of the apartments have remained the same since the 1990 era alterations (Harbor Park 2023).

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Personnel Qualifications
Principal Investigator and Architectural Historian Andrew Bursan, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history, supervised all phases of the architectural history investigation. Mr. Bursan conducted extensive archival and historical research and prepared the report, including the historic context and completed the evaluation. Assistant Architectural Historian Jessica Rebollo conducted the fieldwork and Senior Architectural Historian Jeremy Adams performed quality control.

Andrew Bursan is a Senior Architectural Historian with 16 years of experience in historic preservation and land planning. He has worked on a variety of projects with organizations like the California Department of 506
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
11 August 2024
2024-182

Transportation, Los Angeles County Metro, and several city governments including Pasadena, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Andrew's expertise covers project management, architectural surveys, historical assessments, and extensive historical research. He has contributed to historic context statements, technical reports, and impact analyses for cultural resources.

Jessica Rebollo is an Assistant Architectural Historian with 1 year of experience in historic preservation and historic research. She is experienced in preparing historic contexts, conducting field surveys, and using NRHP criteria to evaluate historic properties. She holds an M.A. and B.A. in History.

Jeremy Adams has an M.A. in History (Public History) and a B.A. in History, with 15 years of experience specializing in historic resources of the built environment. He is skilled in conducting historical research at repositories such as city, state, and private archives, libraries, California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) information centers, and historical societies. He has experience conducting field reconnaissance and intensive surveys. He has conducted evaluations of cultural resources for eligibility to the NRHP and CRHR.

3.2 Records Search Methods
ECORP conducted a records search for the property at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the CHRIS at Sonoma State University-Rohnert Park in August 2024. The records search was completed to identify if the buildings have been previously recorded or evaluated. ECORP completed the records search on August 23, 2024 (NWIC File No. 24-0294; Appendix A). the purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a 0.25-mile (400 meter) radius of the Proposed Study Area, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area. NWIC staff completed and returned the records search to ECORP on August 29, 2024.

Literature reviewed included listings of resources on the OHP’s Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Suisun City, Solano County, California Historic Resources Inventory, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, the CRHR, and the NRHP.

3.3 Archival Research Methods
ECORP performed building development and archival research for the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street to establish a thorough and accurate historic context for the significance evaluations, and to confirm the building development history of the property at Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street and associated parcels.

3.3.1 Suisun City Building Department
ECORP contacted the Suisun City Building Department on August 23, 2024 via telephone and was informed by department staff that they are familiar with the subject property but no known original or alteration building permits are believed to exist for the property in their records. 507
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
12 August 2024
2024-182

3.3.2 Fairfield Civic Center Library
ECORP visited the Fairfield Civic Center Library on August 27, 2024 to research the subject property.

ECORP attempted to obtain information from the documents relating to the property. The library’s collections included newspaper clippings, city directories, scrapbooks, digitized e-books, and historical photographs.

3.3.3 Historical Newspaper Review
ECORP reviewed historical newspapers from Suisun City and surrounding cities to understand the development of Suisun City and the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street. These documents were used in preparation of the historic context and significance evaluations.

3.3.4 Historical Aerial Photographs
A review of historical aerial photographs was conducted as part of the archival research effort for the following years: 1948, 1957, 1965, 1966, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1985, 1994, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (National Environmental Title Research, LLC 2024; University of California, Santa Barbara 2023).

3.3.5 Built Environment Resources Directory
ECORP reviewed the California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Solano County for Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street in the Project Area.

3.3.6 The Solano County Historical Society
ECORP mailed an interested party letter to the Solano County Historical Society on August 26, 2024 to inform them of the Project and seek information on the property. ECORP has not received a response to the letter to date.

3.3.7 Solano County Assessor
ECORP obtained assessor data for Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street on August 20, 2024. This assessor data gave information about construction dates and current owners.

3.4 Field Methods
ECORP conducted an intensive site visit on August 20, 2024 utilizing the OHP’s guidelines for recording historical resources (OHP 1995) to document the building on appropriate DPR 523 forms (Appendix B).

The entire exterior of the building was walked and photographed. Interior spaces of the building were also photographed and documented during the site visit. During the field visit, architectural details and integrity considerations were noted for the features of the building, including its setting relative to the rest of the property.
508
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
13 August 2024
2024-182

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

4.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act
The federal law that covers cultural resources that could be affected by federal undertakings is the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of a federal undertaking on properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The agencies must afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. A federal undertaking is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y):

A federal undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval.

The regulations that stipulate the procedures for complying with Section 106 are in 36 CFR 800. The Section 106 regulations require:
 definition of the Area of Potential Effect (APE);
 identification of cultural resources within the APE;
 evaluation of the identified resources within the APE using NRHP eligibility criteria;  determination of whether the effects of the undertaking or project on eligible resources will be adverse; and
 agreement on and implementation of efforts to resolve adverse effects, if necessary.

The federal agency must seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, in some cases, the ACHP, for its determinations of eligibility, effects, and proposed mitigation measures. Section 106 procedures for a specific project can be modified by negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement between the federal agency, the SHPO, and, in some cases, the project proponent.

Effects to a cultural resource are potentially adverse if the lead federal agency, with the SHPO’s concurrence, determines the resource eligible for the NRHP, making it a Historic Property, and if application of the Criteria of Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5[a][2] et seq.) results in the conclusion that the effects will be adverse. The NRHP eligibility criteria, contained in 36 CFR 63, are as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 509
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
14 August 2024
2024-182

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory.

In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, barring exceptional circumstances (36 CFR 60.4).

Resources that are eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP are historic properties.

Regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.5) require that the federal agency, in consultation with the SHPO, apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to historic properties within the APE.

According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1):

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.

4.1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
Under state law (CEQA), cultural resources are evaluated using CRHR eligibility criteria to determine whether any of the sites are Historical Resources, as defined by CEQA. CEQA requires that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts would be significant, to apply mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.

A Historical Resource is a resource that:

1. is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the CRHR by the State Historical Resources Commission;

2. is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC 5020.1(k);

3. is determined to be historically significant by the CEQA lead agency CCR Title 14, § 15064.5(a)]. In making this determination, the CEQA lead agency usually applies the CRHR eligibility criteria.

The eligibility criteria for the CRHR (CCR Title 14, § 4852(b)) state that a resource is eligible if:

1. it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S.;

2. it is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.

3. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. it has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
510
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
15 August 2024
2024-182

In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, § 4852(c)).

Historical buildings, structures, and objects are usually eligible under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 based on historical research and architectural or engineering characteristics. Archaeological sites are usually eligible under Criterion 4, the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. The CEQA lead agency makes the determination of eligibility. Cultural resources determined eligible for the NRHP by a federal agency are automatically eligible for the CRHR.

Impacts to a Historical Resource (as defined by CEQA) are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, § 15064.5(a)).

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 Records Search Results
The records search completed on August 29, 2024 consisted of a review of previous reports and records on file with the NWIC as well as review of a number of historic property registers and inventories for Suisun City and Solano County. The records search for this Project was completed to determine if the building had been previously recorded or evaluated, is located within or adjacent to a known historic district or is currently listed on a local historical register.

Six previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted in a 0.25 mile of the Project Area (Table 1). Of the six studies, none were conducted within the Project Area. These studies revealed the presence of historical sites and sites associated with historic buildings, mostly for the nearby Suisun- Fairfield Train Depot and Travis Air Force Base. The previous studies were conducted between 1977 and 2015.

Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Report No.
(S-) Author(s) Report Title Year
5093 D. L. True Archaeological Survey: Realignment of Highway 12, Fairfield, California. 1977
5094 D. L. True Cultural Resources Evaluation of the North Bay Aqueduct Alignment Alternatives (Routes 1, 4 and 6), Solano County, California. 1978 5167 David Chavez Cultural Resources Evaluation of the North Bay Aqueduct Alignment Alternatives (Routes 1, 4 and 6), Solano County, California. 1980 7890 Larry Spanne
Cultural Resources Survey of 1.7 Acres of Excess Property at Travis Air Force Base, California (Parcel 32-091-03; Tract 100 and a Portion of Tract 70).
1986
16743 Susan E. Page Negative Archaeological Survey Report, proposed tidal marsh for wetland mitigation purposes, 10-SOL-12 P.M. R5.0/7.9 10-101 373100 1992 511
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
16 August 2024
2024-182

Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Report No.
(S-) Author(s) Report Title Year
47226 Kimberly J. Butt
Historic Property Survey Report, Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Project at 177 Main Street, Suisun City, Solano County, California, CML-5032(026)
2015
47226a Kimberly J. Butt
Historic Resource Evaluation Report for the Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Project, Suisun City, Solano County, California CML 5032 (026), CW-SOL-5032-1
2014
47226b E. Timothy Jones
Archaeological Survey Report for the Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Project, Suisun City, Solano County, California CML 5032 (026), CW-SOL-5032-1
2014
47226c Kimberly Butt
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Action Plan for the Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Project, Suisun City, Solano County, California CML 5032 (026), CW- SOL-5032-1
2015
47226d Kimberly Butt
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Action Plan for the Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Project, Suisun City, Solano County, California CML 5032 (026), CW- SOL-5032-1 - FINAL SIGNED
2015
47226e N/A Suisun-Fairfield Train Depot Renovation Conceptual Design Study, IR Project no. 2013-055-01, Federal Project No. CML-5032(026) 2014 The records search also determined that 10 previously recorded historic-era cultural resources are located within 0.25 mile of the Project Area (Table 2). Of these, 32 are historic-era sites, associated with agricultural and transportation activity. None of the previously recorded historic-era cultural resources are associated with the Almond Garden Apartments complex.

Appendix A consists of a full list of resources within 0.25 mile of the APE.

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Primary No.
(P-48-) Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
978 2013 (Cheryl Brookshear, Ann Roberts, JRP
Historical Consulting) Historic Suisun Marsh Channels
1655 2009 (K. Haley, M. Beneli, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic Suisun City Historic District 1688 2008 (K. Haley, M. Beneli, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 409 Sacramento/601 Main Street 1690 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 603 Main Street 1691 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 605 Main Street 1692 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 607 Main Street 512
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
17 August 2024
2024-182

Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area Primary No.
(P-48-) Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
1694 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 609 Main Street 1697 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 613 Main Street 1701 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 623 and 625 Main Street 1702 2008 (K. Haley, T. Yates, ICF Jones & Stokes) Historic 627 Main Street

5.1.1 Other Sources of Information
The OHP’s BERD for Solano County (dated 2024) lists built environment properties for Suisun City (OHP 2024). The subject property is unlisted.

The National Register Information System (National Park Service 2024) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the Project Area.

A RealQuest online property search for APNs 0032-101-420 and 0032-102-160 revealed the property consists of 3.72 acres of residentially zoned land, with historic-era buildings constructed circa 1967. It is owned by the Suisun City Housing Authority. No other property history information was on record with RealQuest.

ECORP contacted the Suisun City Building Department on August 7, 2024 via telephone and was informed by department staff that they are familiar with the subject property but no known original or alteration building permits are believed to exist for the property in their records.

5.2 Site Visit Results
ECORP Architectural Historian Jessica Rebollo, conducted an intensive site visit of the Project Area at Almond Street on August 20, 2024. Ms. Rebollo meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history. The survey entailed walking around the Project Area ; documenting the site with notes and photographs, specifically noting character-defining features, spatial relationships, and observed alterations; and examining any historic landscape features on the property.

Select photographs and a detailed description of the building from the intensive site visit are provided on Figures 3 through 8. The DPR 523 records for the historic-period building are provided in Appendix B. 513
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
18 August 2024
2024-182

Figure 3. Overview of 707 Almond Street (view southwest; August 20, 2024).

Figure 4. Overview of Almond Street Buildings (view south; August 20, 2024). 514
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
19 August 2024
2024-182

Figure 5. Overview of 804 Almond Street (view northwest; August 20, 2024).

Figure 6. Overview of Almond Street (view west; August 20, 2024). 515
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
20 August 2024
2024-182

Figure 7. Overview of Almond Street Buildings (view northwest; August 20, 2024).

Figure 8. Overview of 710 Almond Street (view northwest; August 20, 2024). 516
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
21 August 2024
2024-182

5.2.1 Almond Gardens Apartments Building Description
The thirteen buildings associated with Almond Gardens constitute a Ranch-style influenced design. The buildings are configured in a rectangular layout with six buildings north of Almond Street and seven buildings to the south. The buildings are rectangular in plan with a concrete foundation and wood -frame construction. Four of the buildings feature vertical channel wood siding (Figure 3). The remaining nine buildings have rough textured stucco siding with Palo Verde stone decorative accents (Figure 5). The buildings have low pitched gable-on-hip roofs with composition shingles, gable attic vents, and overhanging eves. Multiple vents are located on the roofs of each building. Interior access is provided by multiple single-leaf wood doors on multiple elevations of the buildings, as well as sliding glass doors.

Each building is a quadruplex that contains four separate units. The single-leaf entries constitute the main entry points of each unit. Each unit contains a backyard that is enclosed by a fence and is accessed from the unit by a metal framed sliding glass door (Figure 8). Fenestration consists entirely of aluminum frame slider windows on multiple elevations. Concrete walkways provide access to each unit and landscaping consists of sycamore trees lining Almond Street with shrub plantings along the apartment building exteriors.

5.2.1.1 Evaluation
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street do not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated below.

NRHP/CRHR Criterion A/1
Research shows that the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street housing complex was constructed circa 1967. Although the development of the housing complex is related to the theme of post-World War II public housing, there is no evidence that it contributed to the historical importance of Suisun City housing development or has a significant association with that context. The housing complex reflects a relatively modest public-housing project, both in cost and size, and more elaborate and noteworthy public housing projects can be found in Northern California and throughout the State. There is no evidence that the creation of the complex marked a landmark achievement in public housing or represented an important innovation in the development of public housing. The buildings are not directly associated in a significant way with public housing development in Suisun City or the region. They are related to the post-World War II public housing context of the area, but do not contribute to the historical importance or have significant associations with that context.

The housing complex is not related to the broad patterns of history or individually significantly associated with Suisun City, Solano County, California, or the Nation. Therefore, ECORP found Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion A/1.

NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2
To be eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criterion B/2, the subject property would need to be directly associated with a person who is considered historically significant at the local, state, or national level. Archival research failed to indicate any direct association between any such individuals and the Almond Gardens 517
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
22 August 2024
2024-182

Apartments. Directory and newspaper research indicated that the housing complex was mostly unlisted through the years, and information on past residents is unknown. No known significant individuals have any direct association with the housing complex, and residents have changed multiple times throughout the years, none of whom had a profound historically significant impact. There is no information in the archival record to suggest that Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Therefore, ECORP found the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street housing complex not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion B/2.

NRHP/CRHR Criterion C/3
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street were constructed circa 1967. The buildings within the complex exhibit low pitched roofs, overhanging eaves, and horizontality type of the Ranch architectural style. Despite a slight association with the Ranch style, the largely unadorned buildings lack elements found in better examples of the Ranch style, such as wainscots, dovecotes, x-bracing, and more rambling plans. While Research did not reveal the architect, builder, owner of the Almond Gardens Apartments, the complex has a rather modest and commonplace design that does not suggest the work of a master. No buildings in the housing complex embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Therefore, ECORP found Almond Gardens Apartments not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion C/3.

NRHP/CRHR D/4
The information potential of the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is expressed in its built form and in the historical record. It has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Therefore, ECORP found the Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR under Criterion D/4.

Integrity
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street maintains integrity of setting because the buildings on the property have not been relocated. When the complex was originally completed in the late 1960s, it only had residential to the north and west with vacant land to the south and east which would be developed into residential and industrial buildings by the 1990s. Due to the change in the surrounding the complex since the 1960s, the property no longer retains integrity of setting and association. The buildings within the complex retain most of their original character defining features and original footprint although some buildings have been reclad in non-original rough textured stucco. In addition, seven of the original buildings in the complex were demolished in 1990. Therefore, the property retains much of its integrity of feeling, materials, and workmanship, but lacks integrity of design due to the demolition of seven original buildings in the complex.

Regardless of integrity, due to lack of historical significance, Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street does not meet NRHP or CRHR eligibility criteria as an individual resource or as part of any known or suspected historic district.
518
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
23 August 2024
2024-182

5.2.1.2 Historic District Considerations
Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street is located in a neighborhood with a mix of residential and institutional buildings and lacks a cohesive architectural theme that would warrant a historic district. The building is not a contributor to the Suisun City Historic District, or any existing historic district nor is it locally listed since Suisun City does not have an official register of historic properties or districts. Thus, the building is not considered an element of any existing or potential Historic District .

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
During the 2024 field survey, ECORP documented and evaluated one late-1960s public housing development: Almond Gardens Apartments at 707-815 Almond Street. Almond Gardens Apartments does not meet any of the criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, either individually or as part of an existing historic district, as demonstrated above in Section 5.2.1. Following the archival research, 2024 field survey, and evaluations of the residential properties, ECORP determined that the resource is not considered a Historic Property for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA, nor is it considered Historical Resources for the purposes of CEQA. Until the lead agencies concur with the identification and evaluation of eligibility of cultural resources, no Project activity should occur. 519
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
24 August 2024
2024-182

7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Conklin, Paul A. 1955. Tomorrow a New World: The New Deal Community Program. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Fish, Gertrude S. 1979. Housing Policy during the Great Depression. The Story of Housing, ed. Gertrude Fish. New York: MacMillian.

Grimes, Teresa and Christina Chiang. 2009. City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement . Prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates.

Harbor Park, LLC. 2023. The History of Almond Gardens Fourplexes.

Horak, Katie E., A. Goodrich, A. Hess, and J. English. 2015. LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT; Context: Architecture and Engineering; Theme: The Ranch House, 1930 -1975; Theme:

Housing the Masses, 1880-1975; Sub-Theme: Ranch House Neighborhoods, 1938-1975. Prepared for City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Office of Historic Resources.https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/1acefe03-5615-425f-9182- d58a79014901/The_Ranch_House%2C_1930-1975.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2024.

Hutchmacher, J. Joseph. 1968. Senator Robert F Wagner and the Rise of Urban Liberalism. New York:

Atheneum.

Kitsap Sun. 2002. Successful Strategies. Newspapers.com: Kitsap Sun (Bremerton Washington), May 5, 2002, pg. A1.

McAlester, V. S. 2013. A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. New York City, New York: Alfred A Knopf.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of Suisun City, CA dating from 1948, 1966, 1980, 1985, 1994, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
. Accessed August 27, 2024.

National Park Service. 2024. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/. Accessed August 23 5, 2024.

Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2024. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387. Accessed August 23, 2024. _____. 1995. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

Rowe, Peter G. 1993. Modernity and Housing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

San Franciso Chronicle. 1999. Suisun City Sheds Its Seedy Image. Newspapers.com: San Franciso Chronicle (San Franciso California) September 3 1999, pg. A1.

Schaffter, Dorothy. 1942. State Housing Agencies. New York: Columbia University Press. 520
Architectural History Evaluation
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Almond Gardens Apartments at
707-815 Almond Street Project
25 August 2024
2024-182

Suisun City. 2023. Suisun City General Plan - Cultural Resources Background Report. Cultural and Paleontological Resources.
https://www.suisun.com/files/sharedassets/suisuncity/v/1/departments/development - services/documents/background_reports_fin_-_vol_2_-_ch_3_-_cultural_resources.pdf.

University of California, Santa Barbara. 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of Suisun City, CA dating from 1957, 1965, 1970, and 1973. Map & Imagery Laboratory UCSB Library, Electronic Resource. http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder. Accessed August 29, 2024.

Wood, Edith Elmer. 1931. Recent Trends in American Housing. New York: Macmillan Co.

Wright, Gwendolyn. 1981. Building the Dream: A Social History of Housing in America. New York: Pantheon Books.
521

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Field Visit Photographs
Appendix B – Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms 522

APPENDIX A
Field Visit Photographs

523
DPR 523I (1/95)
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
PHOTOGRAPH RECORD Trinomial

Page 1 of 2 ends

Suisun City City CouncilJuly 15, 2025

Suisun City City Council
July 15, 2025