Hector Guerra December 2, 2025
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Subject: Technical Memorandum – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment for Tulare County Office of Educa'on Administra'on and Conference Center Expansion This Technical Memorandum (memo) has been prepared to summarize the methodology and results of an Air Quality (AQ), Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the Tulare County Office of Educaon (TCOE) Administraon and Conference Center Expansion project (Project). TCOE proposes to expand and add facilies to its exisng Administrave Office and Conference Center (AOCC) site at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard in Tulare County near Visalia, California.
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Inial Study is in progress. This Technical Memo focuses on the quanficaon of criteria pollutants, health risks to sensive receptors from toxic air contaminants (TAC), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions and health risks from TAC are also compared to numerical thresholds of significance established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District (SJVAPCD). GHG emissions, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and energy usage calculaons from the California Emissions Esmator Model (CalEEMod) are included for informaon purposes as no related numerical thresholds of significance have been established.
This Technical Memo does not include in-depth discussions on se@ng, regulatory background, pollutant descripons and sources, other impacts, or final determinaons of impact significance. Appropriate discussions on all topics not included in this Technical Memo, including the full range of consideraons for impact significance, should be included in the Inial Study. Among other consideraons, the Inial Study should include assessments for consistency with established plans and regulaons for the control of air quality and GHG.
Esmated criteria pollutant emissions and health risks from TAC would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the associated impacts would be less than significant, with regards to the numerical thresholds discussed.
Project Descrip'on
TCOE proposes to expand and add facilies to its exisng Administrave Office and Conference Center (AOCC) site at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard. TCOE has also acquired and mostly developed an adjacent parcel that will be merged with the main Project site to form a single parcel for development.
The main Project site is approximately 12.5 acres and would include:
• 108,000 square feet (sqB) of office and conference room space • 3 classrooms, with a training kitchen, totaling 6,200 sqB • 35,000 sqB of warehouse space
1098
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
• Stormwater basin, parking, vehicular access, and other site improvements The primary use of the Project will be to host professional development trainings and workshops for TCOE employees.
In addion to the expansion, TCOE previously completed construcon of an Administraon and Conference Center on an adjacent 11-acre parcel. An Inial Study and Migated Negave Declaraon (IS/MND) was completed for the previous project, which included 87,000 square feet of building space, consisng of a three-story office building, a conference center, and associated parking and site improvements. The exisng conference center is used to host conferences and educaonal training.
The exisng site would be merged with the Project for planning purposes, and the combined development parcel would be annexed into the City of Visalia. Except for the minor site work shown on the aI ached Demolion Plan, the exisng site is not included in the analyses performed for this Tech Memo because an IS/MND was previously completed and there would be no changes to operaonal characteriscs.
Project construcon will commence aBer all permits and bidding have been completed. To allow for the earliest (and most health-conservave for an AQ/GHG/HRA analysis) start date, construcon was assumed to begin January 1, 2026 and last for the default duraon esmated by CalEEMod.
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutant emissions were esmated using the latest version of CalEEMod. Land uses were modeled as follows:
• Conference room – government office building
• Classrooms – junior community college
• Warehouse – unrefrigerated warehouse, no rail
• Parking – parking lot
• Driveways – other asphalt areas
• Stormwater basin, concrete – other non-asphalt area
The operaonal characteriscs of the uses selected for the conference room, classrooms, and warehouse would overesmate the actual vehicle trips and resource usages of the Project, but were selected as health-conservave opons that most closely match based on the CalEEMod User Guide. Areas were esmated from the aI ached Site Plan.
The CalEEMod results are included as AI achment 2 and summarized in the table below, along with comparisons to the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.
1099
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Table 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year) CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construcon Emissions (migated, worst year) 2.1 1.6 0.40 <0.005 0.28 0.15 SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operaonal Emissions 10 1.7 2.0 0.03 2.3 0.62
SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reacve organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constuent and essenally equivalent PM10 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns As shown in the table above, Project construcon and operaonal emissions of criteria pollutants not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, with respect to the numerical thresholds, impacts would be less than significant.
As explained in the introducon of this Technical Memo, the Inial Study must include addional consideraons including, but not limited to, an assessment of Project consistency with established air quality plans and regulaons. The broader discussion of impact significance is deferred to the Inial Study; however, it is noted here that, generally, Projects with emissions below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance and that comply with SJVAPCD air quality plans and regulaons can be presumed to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulave impact to air quality.
It should be noted that emissions were esmated without including any non-default regulatory or migaon measures (except for Migaon Measure HRA-1). Emissions are therefore expected to be lower with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures. Some of the impacMul measures include clean vehicle and fuel regulaons, the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), an-idling, SJVAPCD Regulaon VIII (Fugive PM10 Prohibions), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).
Ambient Air Quality
The exposure of sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons can occur if the Project would result in localized exceedances of Naonal or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), or if Project emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance (discussed in the HRA secon below). SJVAPCD has determined that, if maximum Project criteria pollutant emissions are below 100 pounds per day for each pollutant, it can be concluded that the Project would not result in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS and no further Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) is required.
Following the SJVAPCD methodology presented in Applicaon Review Policies (APR) 2030 (Project Ambient Air Quality Analysis Applicability Determinaon under CEQA)1, the Project was first assessed to determine whether it would be subject to Indirect Source Review (ISR). The Project site is over the square footage thresholds listed in Rule 9510 and would therefore be subject. Maximum daily criteria pollutants resulng from construcon and operaon were then calculated as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above. 1 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District , 2018) 1100
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions are compared to the 100-lb-per-day AAQA applicability threshold in the table below.
Table 2 Maximum Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to AAQA Screening Threshold (lb/day) CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construcon Emissions (max daily, worst year, worst season) 29 29 38 0.05 21 11 Exceeds 100 lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operaonal Emissions (max daily, worst season) 94 13 15 0.21 18 4.7 Exceeds 100 lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reacve organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constuent and essenally equivalent PM10 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns It is worth nong that, although the worst daily operaonal CO emissions are esmated to come near the 100 pound per day threshold, the emissions are an overesmaon compared to actual operaonal characteriscs and, more important, an AAQA is only required to consider on-site emissions and off-site emissions within ¼ mile of the project boundary. Since most of the emissions are from vehicle trips, with trip lengths averaging over 9 miles, the onsite CO emissions for consideraon under an AAQA would be far lower.
As shown in the table above, none of the criteria pollutants would exceed 100 pounds per day, during construcon or operaon. Therefore, no further AAQA is required and the Project would not expose sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons by resulng in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS. With respect to the numerical threshold established by SJVAPCD, the associated impact would be less than significant. No migaon is required outside of compliance with exisng regulaons. As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions are expected to be further reduced with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
Health Risk Assessment
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in this Technical Memo was prepared in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparaon of Health Risk Assessments2; SJVAPCD Policy APR 1906 – Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments3 and Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling4. The reader is encouraged to reference those sources, along with the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Migang Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI)5 for in-depth discussions regarding se@ng, regulatory background, pollutant descripons, and HRA methodologies, as this Technical Memo includes only a crical summary of the project-specific HRA methodology and results.
The primary Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) of concern include diesel parculate maI er (DPM) emissions from dieselfueled construcon vehicle and equipment use. Operaon would not include any substanal sources of DPM or any other substanal sources of TAC.
2 (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asssessment, 2015) 3 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2020) 4 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2022a) 5 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2015) 1101
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
The United States Environmental Protecon Agency’s (U.S. EPA) American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was used to model the annual downwind air concentraon at nearby receptors, based on a normalized emission rate of one gram per second. Meteorological data was obtained from SJVAPCD (Visalia met site); CARB and SJVAPCD recommended modeling parameters were used throughout.
Construcon emissions were modeled as an area source with dimensions matching the Project site. Discrete worker and residenal receptors were added based on business and residence locaons shown on the imported Google Earth base map; a total of 36 receptors were added for a representave analysis. Terrain was added using the built in WebGIS tool.
Construcon DPM emissions were esmated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above.
SJVAPCD considers PM10 exhaust to be a reasonable surrogate for DPM, and the maximum (worst year) annual emissions were used for subsequent calculaons.
Normalized downwind air concentraons for each receptor (modeled in the step above) were imported into the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporng Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) and combined with the toxic emissions data to esmate the ground level concentraons of TAC at each receptor. A separate run was performed for worker risk because the highest risk receptor would be at the exisng TCOE facilies just west of the site. The exposure duraon was set to two years, rounded up from the 1.3 year construcon meline. The construcon risk calculaons included the area source described in the modeling above and annual emissions of DPM. OEHHA has not established a Reference Exposure Level (REL) for 8-hour chronic, or acute health risk from DPM. Thus, the 8-hour chronic and acute HI are not calculated, except in unusual situaons such as when a sensive receptor is located directly above the emission release point (e.g., on a hillside or in a mulstory apartment building).
Results of the AERMOD modeling and ADMRT calculaons are included as AI achment 3, along with a map of receptors. Modeling input and output files will be made available to reviewing agencies upon request. The highest risks calculated for each scenario are presented in the table below, along with comparisons to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. All results are the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for each scenario.
Table 3 Health Risk Assessment Results Compared to Thresholds of Significance RISK
CARCINOGEN
(risk in one million) CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Construcon Health Risk 15.7 (Receptor 6) 0.0092 (Receptor 6) Thresholds of Significance 20 1
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO
1No HI calculated for Construcon DPM Acute risk because OEHHA has not established REL.
As shown in the table above, the highest risks occurred at Receptor 6, a residence located adjacent to the north side of the Project site. Inial calculaons indicated that the highest risks could occur at Receptor 28; however, that receptor locaon is an exisng TCOE facility adjacent to the west side of the Project site. Risks were recalculated for Receptor 28 as a worker and the results were substanally lower than the risks to residenal Receptor 6 and well under the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.
Calculated risks would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons resulng from TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions would be further reduced with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
1102
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Greenhouse Gases, Vehicle Miles Travelled, and Energy Use Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), and Energy use were all esmated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above. The full detailed report is included in AI achment 2 CalEEMod Results. Summaries are provided in the tables below for informaon purposes only. No discussion is provided in this Technical Memo regarding impact significance. As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions are expected to be even lower with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
Table 4 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) CONSTRUCTION BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Construcon Emissions (worst year) --- 339 339 0.01 0.01 0.04 342 OPERATION BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Operaonal Emissions 18.7 5,035 5,054 2.35 0.42 741 5,979 BCO2 = biogenic carbon dioxide
NBCO2 = non-biogenic (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide
CO2T = total carbon dioxide
CH4 = methane
N2O = nitrous oxide
R = refrigerants
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents (total)
Table 5 Project Energy Use by Land Use
LAND USE ELECTRICITY (kWh/yr) NATURAL GAS (kBTU/yr)
Government Office Building (Conference Center) 2,084,306 3,968,973 Junior College (Classrooms) 64,808 277,206
Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail 187,044 581,580
Parking Lot 70,255 0
TOTAL 2,406,413 4,827,759
kWh/yr = kilowa(-hours per year
kBTU/yr = thousand Brish Thermal Units per year
Table 6 Project Opera4onal Mobile Sources
LAND USE Trips/
Weekday
Trips/
Saturday
Trips/
Sunday
Trips/
Year
VMT/
Weekday
VMT/
Saturday
VMT/
Sunday VMT/ Year
Government Office
Building
(Conference Center)
2,440 0 0 636,070 22,867 0 0 5,961,848
Junior College
(Classrooms)
126 70 7.5 36,754 1,177 653 70 344,497
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse – No
Rail
61 61 61 22,229 571 571 571 208,346
TOTAL 2,627 131 69 695,053 24,615 1,224 641 6,514,691
VMT = vehicle miles travelled
1103
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
References
Associaon of Environmental Professionals. (2025). 2025 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines.
California Air Polluon Control Officers Associaon. (2022). California Emissions Esmator Model.
Retrieved from hI ps://caleemod.com/.
California Air Resources Board. (2022a). HARP Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-air-dispersion-modeling-and-risk-tool.
California Air Resources Board. (2024). Non-Vehicular Diesel Engine Risk Assessment Guidance. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-vehicular-diesel-engine-riskassessment-guidance.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asssessment. (2015). Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparaon of Health Risk Assessments. Retrieved from hI ps://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District . (2018). APR 2030 - Project Ambient Air Quality Analysis Applicability Determinaon under CEQA. Retrieved from
hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/50ahzpwc/apr-2030.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Migang Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from hI ps://www.valleyair.org/transportaon/GAMAQI.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2020). Policy APR 1906 - Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/0shm0mlk/apr1906.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2022a). Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/zlbhrg22/modeling_guidance.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2024). APR 1925 - Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/341fy4sn/apr-1925-rule-2201-aaqamodeling-may-2024.pdf.
ADachments: A5achment 1 Site Plans; A5achment 2 CalEEMod Results; A5achment 3 HRA Results. 1104
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO
PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO PARKING NO PARKING
CHARGING NO PARKING
EV EV CHARGING
ONLY ONLY
NO
PARKING
VAN
NO PARKING NO PARKING
VAN NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN
NO
PARKING
EV ONLY CHARGING
VAN
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGINGEV ONLY CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
4 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" north 600 BLDG. 200 BLDG. 300 BLDG. 400 BLDG. 100 BLDG. 500 BLDG. NEW BUILDING SITE PLAN LEGEND: CTR 1 PT 7 PT 3 PT 4 PT 6 PT 5 (E) BUILDING ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS, SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR GENDER PROPERTY LINE NEW CONCRETE PAVING NEW ASPHALT PAVING CONTROL POINT, SEE TABLE ON SD2 PT 2 PT 1 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL PER DSA #02-113439 DSA #02-113439 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SD15 SD2 PATH OF TRAVEL (P.O.T.) AS VERIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT IS: - A COMMON BARRIER FREE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT LEAST 48" WIDE WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" BEVELED AT 1:2 MAXIMUM SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL. - THE PATH SURFACE IS SLIP RESISTANT, STABLE, FIRM, AND SMOOTH. - PASSING SPACES AT LEAST 60" x 60" ARE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 200' APART (11B-403.5.3). - CONTINUOUS GRADIENTS HAVE 60" LEVEL AREAS NOT MORE THAN 400' APART (11B-403.7). - CROSS-SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2%. - SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IS 5% OR LESS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AS A RAMP. - MAINTAIN P.O.T. FREE OF OVERHANGING OBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM, PROTRUDING OBJECTS GREATER THAN 4" PROJECTION FROM WALL OR EDGE AND 27" ABOVE FINISH GRADE (11B-307.2). - GRATING LOCATED IN THE SURFACE OF ANY PEDESTRIAN WAY IN THE P.O.T. SHALL HAVE GRID/OPENINGS IN GRATING LIMITED TO 1/2" MAXIMUM CLEAR IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL FLOW 1 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL :2 GATE ACCESS NOTE: ALL C.L. AND DECORATIVE METAL 4'-0" WIDE GATES IN THE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL HAVE LEVER-TYPE LATCH AND 10" HIGH KICKPLATES SECURE TO C.L. MESH BOTH SIDES, 5LBS MAX FORCE TO PUSH OR PULL OPEN (11B-404.2.9) AND 5BLS MAX TO ACTIVATE OPERABLE PARTS (11B-304.9) AND STRIKE SIDE (MANEUVERING) CLEARANCE PER. CBC 11B-404.2.4.1. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING: NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING, SEE SHEET SD8 PARKING LOT 1: 383 EXISTING PARKING STALLS PER DSA# 02-113439. 8 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 7 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 9 > 8 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 2: 122 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 5 = 5 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 3: 200 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 7 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 4 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 7 = 7 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 4: 17 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PROVIDED, 1 = 1 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 5: 51 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 4 > 3 THEREFORE OK.4 PASSENGER LOADING ZONES: DROP-OFF ZONES SHALL PROVIDE AN ACCESS AISLE AT LEAST 60" WIDE AND 20' LONG ADJACENT AND PARALLEL TO THE VEHICLE PULL UP SPACE. SUCH ZONES SHALL BE LOCATED ON A SURFACE WITH A SLOPE NOT OVER 2% SITE PLAN KEYNOTES:
1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 2 PARKING LOT 3 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 4 50'-0" MIN. 50'-0" MIN. SAFE DISPERSAL AREA: DISPERSAL AREA = 25,626 S.F. 25,626 S.F. / 5 S.F. = 5,125 OCCUPANTS 140 STUDENTS + 4,309 STAFF = 4,449 OCCUPANTS 5,125 > 4,449 THEREFORE OK 2 + 3 + 4 (PUBLIC PARKING) 5 (FLEETPARKING) EV CAPABLE REQ'D 68 # OF STALLS 338 50 10 LOT # EV PARKING 3 3
3 3
2 2
22 2 REFER TO ENLARGED SITE PLANS, SHEETS SD4-SD7 FOR LOCATION OF EV CAPABLE STALLS AND EV CHARGERS. EV CHARGERS REQ'D 18 3 # OF EV CHARGERS 1848 # OF EV CAPABLE 6848 SAFE DISPERSAL AREA S MOONEY BLVD STRUCTURE NOT PART OF THIS REVIEW OR APPROVAL STRUCTURE NOT PART OF THIS REVIEW OR APPROVAL SD1 OVERALL SITE PLAN F:\01 Projects\23098\Drawings\01 Architectural\03 Sheets\23098_SD1 - Overall Site Plan.dwg Aug 25 2025 8:49am 23098 PROJECT TITLE
TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA
NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION
REVISIONS
MANGINI
ARCHITECTURE
INGENUITY
MANGINI ASSOCIATES INC.
4320 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
www.mangini.us
(559) 627.0530 Office
(559) 627.1926 Fax DATE: JANUARY 24, 2025 APPLICATION # 02-122991 FILE # 54-118APPROVALS EXISTING BUILDG 100 ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE PLANS
1105
IRR
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO
PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO PARKING DEMO SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" north DEMO SITE PLAN LEGEND: DEMO SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: (E) BUILDING (E) CONCRETE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) ASPHALT TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) OBJECT TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE, PROTECT (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED, FILL & COMPACT ALL HOLES LEFT BY REMOVAL OF ROOT-BALLS. PROPERTY LINE D1 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB TO REMAIN 100 BLDG. DSA #02-113439 D2 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER TO REMAIN D3 EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN D4 EXISTING UTILITY BOX TO REMAIN D5 EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TO REMAIN D6D7D8 EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN D9 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB D10 REMOVE EXISTING RIVER ROCK D11 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN, SEE CIVIL DWGS. D12 D13 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER D14 EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE D15 REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE D16 D17 D18 D19 EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINER TO BE SALVAGED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCING/GATE PT 2 PT 1 CONTROL POINT D20 EXISTING DRAIN INLET TO REMAIN D21 EXISTING TURF OR PLANTER TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING REMOVE EXISTING PLANT/TREE D21 D21 D17 D6 D6 D6 D6 D17 D17 D19 D20 D7 D11 D4 D18 D5 D2 D15 D9 D5 D10 D12 D1 D9 D4 D16 D10 D3 D13 D14 D5 D12 D1 D8D8 D8 D2 D13 D7 D7 D16 D17 D17 D22 REMOVE EXISTING AC PAVING D22 SD3 DEMO SITE PLAN F:\01 Projects\23098\Drawings\01 Architectural\03 Sheets\23098_SD3 - Demo Site Plan.dwg Nov 14 2025 12:59pm 23098 PROJECT TITLE
TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA
NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION
REVISIONS
MANGINI
ARCHITECTURE
INGENUITY
MANGINI ASSOCIATES INC.
4320 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
www.mangini.us
(559) 627.0530 Office
(559) 627.1926 Fax DATE: JANUARY 24, 2025 APPLICATION # 02-122991 FILE # 54-118APPROVALS MICHAEL J. SCOTT JR. REN. 05-31-27 No. C-34290
LICENSED
A
RCHITECT
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
DSA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICESD
DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT SA
IDENTIFICATION STAMP
DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
APP: INC:
REVIEWED FOR
SS FLS ACS
DATE:
✔ ✔ ✔
02-122991
11/21/2025
1106
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
1 / 56
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 2 - CalEEMod
Results
1107
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
2 / 56
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - 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
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
1108
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
3 / 56
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
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
1109
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
4 / 56
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
5.10.2. 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
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
1110
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
5 / 56
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
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1111
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
6 / 56
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
8.1. Justifications
1112
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
7 / 56
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.9
Precipitation (days) 24
Location 11836 Avenue 264, Visalia, CA 93277, USA
County Tulare
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2784
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Eastside Power Authority
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.35
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
Government Office
Building
108 1000sqft 2.5 108,000 0.00 0.00 — —
1113
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
8 / 56
Junior College (2yr) 6.2 1000sqft 0.14 6,200 0.00 0.00 — — Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
35 1000sqft 0.80 35,000 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
100 1000sqft 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 80 1000sqft 1.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
33 1000sqft 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
20 1000sqft 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.6 1.4 11 16 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.81 0.36 0.10 0.46 — 3,219 3,219 0.13 0.11 2.4 3,258 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 38 38 29 29 0.05 1.2 20 21 1.1 10 11 — 5,389 5,389 0.22 0.11 0.06 5,409 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.2 2.2 8.9 11 0.02 0.34 1.2 1.5 0.31 0.53 0.84 — 2,332 2,332 0.09 0.07 0.60 2,355 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1114
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
9 / 56
Unmit. 0.41 0.40 1.6 2.1 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.10 0.15 — 386 386 0.02 0.01 0.10 390
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.6 1.4 11 16 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.81 0.36 0.10 0.46 — 3,219 3,219 0.13 0.11 2.4 3,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.8 3.2 29 29 0.05 1.2 20 21 1.1 10 11 — 5,389 5,389 0.22 0.11 0.06 5,409 2027 38 38 10 15 0.03 0.34 0.42 0.77 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,168 3,168 0.12 0.11 0.05 3,204 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.3 1.1 8.9 11 0.02 0.34 1.2 1.5 0.31 0.53 0.84 — 2,332 2,332 0.09 0.07 0.60 2,355 2027 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.6 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.07 293 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23 0.19 1.6 2.1 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.10 0.15 — 386 386 0.02 0.01 0.10 390 2027 0.41 0.40 0.19 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 48 48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 49
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16 15 11 94 0.21 0.28 17 18 0.27 4.4 4.7 133 25,312 25,446 15 1.1 65 26,213 1115
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
10 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 14 13 13 72 0.19 0.27 17 18 0.26 4.4 4.7 133 23,537 23,670 15 1.2 2.0 24,398 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12 11 9.1 57 0.15 0.23 12 13 0.22 3.2 3.4 133 18,731 18,864 14 0.89 20 19,511 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.1 2.0 1.7 10 0.03 0.04 2.3 2.3 0.04 0.58 0.62 22 3,101 3,123 2.4 0.15 3.4 3,230
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11 11 10.0 86 0.20 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 20,604 20,604 0.76 0.96 64 20,974 Area 4.6 4.5 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 16 15 11 94 0.21 0.28 17 18 0.27 4.4 4.7 133 25,312 25,446 15 1.1 65 26,213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10 9.4 11 71 0.18 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 18,855 18,855 0.86 1.0 1.7 19,186 Area 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 1116
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
11 / 56
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 14 13 13 72 0.19 0.27 17 18 0.26 4.4 4.7 133 23,537 23,670 15 1.2 2.0 24,398 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.5 6.9 7.8 53 0.14 0.12 12 13 0.12 3.2 3.3 — 14,036 14,036 0.59 0.72 20 14,286 Area 4.0 3.9 0.03 3.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 12 11 9.1 57 0.15 0.23 12 13 0.22 3.2 3.4 133 18,731 18,864 14 0.89 20 19,511 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.4 1.3 1.4 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.3 2.3 0.02 0.58 0.60 — 2,324 2,324 0.10 0.12 3.3 2,365 Area 0.73 0.72 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 751 751 0.06 < 0.005 — 754 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.5 24 34 0.97 0.02 — 65
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 44
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 2.1 2.0 1.7 10 0.03 0.04 2.3 2.3 0.04 0.58 0.62 22 3,101 3,123 2.4 0.15 3.4 3,230
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1117
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
12 / 56
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.7 2.3 21 19 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.13 1.1 1.0 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1118
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
13 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78 78 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.5 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 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.7 3.1 29 29 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 1119
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
14 / 56
Dust — — — — — — 20 20 — 10 10 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 91 91 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 93 1120
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
15 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.6 2.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.0 1.6 15 17 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.1 7.1 — 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 1121
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
16 / 56
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.82 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78 78 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.5 1122
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
17 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.3 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.3 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1123
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
18 / 56
Off-Roa 0.73 0.61 5.6 7.4 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 1.0 1.4 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.26 0.14 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 306 306 0.02 0.01 1.1 312 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.71 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 516 516 0.01 0.08 1.3 541 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.22 0.18 1.8 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 271 271 0.02 0.01 0.03 276 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 516 516 0.01 0.08 0.03 540 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.09 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.27 164 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 295 295 0.01 0.04 0.31 309 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27 1124
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
19 / 56
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49 49 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 51 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.2 1.0 9.4 13 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.57 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1125
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
20 / 56
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.16 1.6 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 266 266 0.01 0.01 0.03 270 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.72 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 506 506 0.01 0.08 0.03 529 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.8 2.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.1 5.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1126
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
21 / 56
Off-Roa 0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
Paving 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 83 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77 77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1127
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
22 / 56
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.4 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.1 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
38 38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.3 7.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.3 1128
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
23 / 56
Architect
Coatings
2.1 2.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.38 0.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53 53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.0 3.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1129 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
24 / 56
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
10 9.8 9.3 80 0.19 0.16 16 16 0.15 4.1 4.3 — 19,142 19,142 0.71 0.89 60 19,485 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.54 0.50 0.48 4.1 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 — 985 985 0.04 0.05 3.1 1,003 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.26 0.24 0.23 2.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 — 478 478 0.02 0.02 1.5 486 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 11 11 10.0 86 0.20 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 20,604 20,604 0.76 0.96 64 20,974 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1130
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
25 / 56
Govern
Office
Building
9.5 8.7 11 66 0.17 0.16 16 16 0.15 4.1 4.3 — 17,517 17,517 0.80 0.96 1.6 17,824 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.49 0.45 0.55 3.4 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 — 901 901 0.04 0.05 0.08 917 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.24 0.22 0.26 1.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 — 437 437 0.02 0.02 0.04 445 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10 9.4 11 71 0.18 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 18,855 18,855 0.86 1.0 1.7 19,186 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
1.2 1.2 1.3 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.1 2.1 0.02 0.53 0.55 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 3.1 2,165 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.07 0.07 0.08 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 0.01 0.01 0.18 125 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.04 0.04 0.05 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 74 74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 76 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 1131
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
26 / 56
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.4 1.3 1.4 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.3 2.3 0.02 0.58 0.60 — 2,324 2,324 0.10 0.12 3.3 2,365
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,588 2,588 0.19 0.02 — 2,600
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 80 80 0.01 < 0.005 — 81
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 232 232 0.02 < 0.005 — 233
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 87 87 0.01 < 0.005 — 88
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,988 2,988 0.22 0.03 — 3,001 1132
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
27 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
———————————— 2,588 2,588 0.19 0.02— 2,600
Junior
College
(2yr)
———————————— 80 80 0.01 < 0.005— 81
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 232 232 0.02 < 0.005— 233
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————— 87 87 0.01 < 0.005— 88
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,988 2,988 0.22 0.03— 3,001
Annual——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
———————————— 428 428 0.03 < 0.005— 430
Junior
College
(2yr)
———————————— 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005— 13
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005— 39
1133
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
28 / 56
Other — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 495 495 0.04 < 0.005 — 497
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.12 0.06 1.1 0.90 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,272 1,272 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,276 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89 89 0.01 < 0.005 — 89 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 186 186 0.02 < 0.005 — 187 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 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 1134
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
29 / 56
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,547 1,547 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,552 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.12 0.06 1.1 0.90 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,272 1,272 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,276 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89 89 0.01 < 0.005 — 89 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 186 186 0.02 < 0.005 — 187 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 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 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 Total 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,547 1,547 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,552 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.02 0.01 0.19 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 211 211 0.02 < 0.005 — 211 Junior
College
(2yr)
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15 1135
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
30 / 56
Unrefrig < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 erated
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 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 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 Total 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 256 256 0.02 < 0.005 — 257
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
3.2 3.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
1.2 1.1 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Total 4.6 4.5 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 1136
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
31 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Consum
er
Product
s
3.2 3.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2 Total 0.73 0.72 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1137
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
32 / 56
Govern
Office
Building
——————————— 41 105 146 4.2 0.10— 282
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.58 1.5 2.1 0.06 < 0.005— 4.0
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 16 40 55 1.6 0.04— 106
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 57 146 203 5.9 0.14— 392
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 41 105 146 4.2 0.10— 282
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.58 1.5 2.1 0.06 < 0.005— 4.0
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 16 40 55 1.6 0.04— 106
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1138
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
33 / 56
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.8 17 24 0.70 0.02 — 47
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.25 0.34 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.66 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.6 6.6 9.1 0.26 0.01 — 18
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.5 24 34 0.97 0.02 — 65
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1139
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
34 / 56
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 54 0.00 54 5.4 0.00— 189
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 4.3 0.00 4.3 0.43 0.00— 15
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00— 62
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00— 267
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 54 0.00 54 5.4 0.00— 189
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 4.3 0.00 4.3 0.43 0.00— 15
1140
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
35 / 56
Unrefrig——————————— 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00— 62
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00— 267
Annual——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 9.0 0.00 9.0 0.90 0.00— 31
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.07 0.00— 2.5
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 2.9 0.00 2.9 0.29 0.00— 10
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00— 44
1141
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
36 / 56
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
1142
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
37 / 56
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1143
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
38 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1144
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
39 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1145
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
40 / 56
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——————————————————
———————————————————
1146
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
41 / 56
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.0 20 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/13/2026 5.0 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/14/2026 5.0 20 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/15/2026 1/31/2027 5.0 230 — Paving Paving 2/1/2027 3/1/2027 5.0 20 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/2/2027 3/30/2027 5.0 20 —
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 8.0 33 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 36 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 1147 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
42 / 56
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 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 Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 18 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 52 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 24 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT 1148
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
43 / 56
Paving Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 10 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 223,800 74,600 14,016
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Site Preparation — — 15 0.00 0.00
Grading — — 20 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.4
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
1149
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
44 / 56
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Government Office Building 0.00 0%
Paving Junior College (2yr) 0.00 0%
Paving Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Paving Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.3 0%
Paving Parking Lot 1.8 100%
Paving Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.77 0%
Paving Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.46 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Government Office
Building
2,440 0.00 0.00 636,070 22,867 0.00 0.00 5,961,848
Junior College (2yr) 126 70 7.5 36,754 1,177 653 70 344,497 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
61 61 61 22,229 571 571 571 208,346
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1150 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
45 / 56
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Government Office Building Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building No Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0 Government Office Building Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Government Office Building Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Government Office Building Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) No Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Gas Fireplaces 0 0
1151
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
46 / 56
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Propane Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Electric Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail No Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Conventional Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Catalytic Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Wood Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Gas Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Propane Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Electric Fireplaces00
Parking Lot No Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Conventional Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
1152
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
47 / 56
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
— Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
undefined 0.00 0.00 223,800 74,600 14,016
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
1153
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
48 / 56
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) Government Office Building 2,084,306 453 0.0330 0.0040 3,968,973 Junior College (2yr) 64,808 453 0.0330 0.0040 277,206
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
187,044 453 0.0330 0.0040 581,580
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 70,255 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 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) Government Office Building 21,455,246 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 304,104 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 8,093,750 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
1154
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
49 / 56
Government Office Building 100 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 8.1 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 33 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Government Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Junior College (2yr) Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Junior College (2yr) Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.5 7.5 20
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
1155
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
50 / 56
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
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. 1156 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
51 / 56
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 36 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.3 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — 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 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 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.
1157
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
52 / 56
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 89
AQ-PM 98
AQ-DPM 44
Drinking Water 68
Lead Risk Housing 21
1158
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
53 / 56
Pesticides 90
Toxic Releases 68
Traffic 31
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 32
Groundwater 71
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 62
Impaired Water Bodies 12
Solid Waste 36
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47
Cardio-vascular 54
Low Birth Weights 38
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 49
Housing 8.5
Linguistic 8.5
Poverty 60
Unemployment 67
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 54.27948159
Employed 86.78301039
Median HI 46.70858463
Education —
1159
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
54 / 56
Bachelor's or higher 50.28872065
High school enrollment 17.31040678
Preschool enrollment 17.29757475
Transportation—
Auto Access 69.12613884
Active commuting 2.24560503
Social—
2-parent households 52.58565379
Voting 71.60272039
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 58.44989093
Park access 19.90247658
Retail density 23.36712434
Supermarket access 40.27973823
Tree canopy 17.1435904
Housing—
Homeownership 62.86410882
Housing habitability 68.20223277
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 76.65853972 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 42.61516746
Uncrowded housing 57.46182471
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 65.30219428
Arthritis 38.0
Asthma ER Admissions 41.2
High Blood Pressure 43.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 29.3
Asthma 43.1
1160
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
55 / 56
Coronary Heart Disease 43.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 40.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 27.8
Cognitively Disabled 16.7
Physically Disabled 22.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 53.6
Mental Health Not Good 48.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 36.0
Pedestrian Injuries 58.4
Physical Health Not Good 51.8
Stroke 45.2
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 30.9
Current Smoker 52.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 50.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 36.4
Elderly 42.6
English Speaking 73.5
Foreign-born 17.6
Outdoor Workers 29.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 62.2
Traffic Density 45.5
1161
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
56 / 56
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 62.3
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 60
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49
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
8.1. Justifications
1162
TCOE ACC
25017 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
Core Environmental
Consulting
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 202-3941 12/1/25 DATE JMDRAWN BY
RECEPTOR
MAP
NOT TO SCALE SCALE 36.273752, -119.309346 LAT/LONG
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 3 - HRA RESULTS
1163
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc SCALE:
0.5 km
1:19,693
PROJECT TITLE:
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
12/2/2025
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
RECEPTORS:
37 OUTPUT TYPE:
Concentration
MAX:
590 ug/m^3
1164
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc SCALE:
0.5 km
1:19,693
PROJECT TITLE:
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
12/2/2025
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
RECEPTORS:
37 OUTPUT TYPE:
Concentration
MAX:
39.4 ug/m^3
1165
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**12/2/2025
**Exported Risk Results
REC X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO INHAL_RISK
1 292612.9 4016982 1.06E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.06E-05 2 292546.9 4016987 1.32E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.32E-05 3 292473.2 4016983 1.56E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-05 4 292502.4 4017038 8.84E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.84E-06 5 292582.4 4017042 6.53E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 6.53E-06 6 292390.7 4016980 1.57E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.57E-05 7 292331 4016982 1.35E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.35E-05 8 292366.6 4017038 1.03E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.03E-05 9 292328.5 4017081 7.84E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.84E-06 10 292411 4017088 7.19E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.19E-06 11 292540.5 4017119 4.19E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.19E-06 12 292799.3 4017140 1.69E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.69E-06 13 293079.8 4016898 1.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.29E-06 14 293035.5 4016757 3.32E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.32E-06 15 293060.9 4016544 5.22E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.22E-06 16 292763.4 4016421 8.47E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.47E-06 17 292565.1 4016290 1.99E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.99E-06 18 292829.4 4016317 5.43E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.43E-06 19 292336.4 4015880 3.50E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.50E-07 20 293107 4016306 4.69E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.69E-06 21 293464.3 4016480 1.59E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.59E-06 22 293209 4016829 1.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.29E-06 23 292586.3 4017485 8.90E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.90E-07 24 292093.4 4017096 5.41E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.41E-06 25 292130.3 4016719 3.58E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.58E-06 26 291974.8 4016717 2.31E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.31E-06 27 291985.3 4016387 5.97E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.97E-07 28 292373 4016885 2.33E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.33E-05 Resident value 28 292372.8 4016885 3.52E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.52E-07 Worker value 29 292328 4016735 1.01E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.01E-05 30 292322.7 4016667 4.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.29E-06 31 292317.5 4016574 2.26E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.26E-06 32 292449.3 4016675 1.56E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-05 33 292420.3 4016590 4.36E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.36E-06 34 292138.2 4016588 1.56E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-06 35 292104 4016419 7.65E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.65E-07 36 292111.9 4016248 4.22E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.22E-07 1166
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**12/2/2025
**Exported Risk Results
REC X Y SCENARIO RESP MAXHI
1 292612.9 4016982 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.006183 0.006183 2 292546.9 4016987 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.007694 0.007694 3 292473.2 4016983 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009095 0.009095 4 292502.4 4017038 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.005169 0.005169 5 292582.4 4017042 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003816 0.003816 6 292390.7 4016980 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009165 0.009165 7 292331 4016982 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.007895 0.007895 8 292366.6 4017038 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.006008 0.006008 9 292328.5 4017081 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004583 0.004583 10 292411 4017088 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004203 0.004203 11 292540.5 4017119 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00245 0.00245 12 292799.3 4017140 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000991 0.000991 13 293079.8 4016898 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000755 0.000755 14 293035.5 4016757 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00194 0.00194 15 293060.9 4016544 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003054 0.003054 16 292763.4 4016421 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004951 0.004951 17 292565.1 4016290 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.001161 0.001161 18 292829.4 4016317 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003177 0.003177 19 292336.4 4015880 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000205 0.000205 20 293107 4016306 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002744 0.002744 21 293464.3 4016480 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00093 0.00093 22 293209 4016829 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000756 0.000756 23 292586.3 4017485 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00052 0.00052 24 292093.4 4017096 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003166 0.003166 25 292130.3 4016719 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002093 0.002093 26 291974.8 4016717 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00135 0.00135 27 291985.3 4016387 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000349 0.000349 28 292373 4016885 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.01362 0.01362 Resident Value 28 292372.8 4016885 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.013617 0.013617 Worker Value 29 292328 4016735 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.005905 0.005905 30 292322.7 4016667 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002508 0.002508 31 292317.5 4016574 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00132 0.00132 32 292449.3 4016675 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009102 0.009102 33 292420.3 4016590 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00255 0.00255 34 292138.2 4016588 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00091 0.00091 35 292104 4016419 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000447 0.000447 36 292111.9 4016248 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000247 0.000247 1167
HARP Project Summary Report 12/2/2025 4:11:33 PM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: 25017 - TCOE ACC HRA
Project Output Directory: C:\HARP2\Projects\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA HARP Database: NA
***FACILITY INFORMATION***
Origin
X (m):0
Y (m):0
Zone:1
No. of Sources:0
No. of Buildings:0
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:1
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProID PolID PolAbbrev
Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ PAREA1 0 0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
120 0 1
Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH22013
Official: True
PolID PolAbbrev InhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL
InhChronicREL OralChronicREL InhChronic8HRREL
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
1168
***AIR DISPERSION MODELING INFORMATION***
Versions used in HARP. All executables were obtained from USEPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling website (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/) AERMOD: 18081
AERMAP: 18081
BPIPPRM: 04274
AERPLOT: 13329
***METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION***
Version:
Surface File:
Profile File:
Surface Station:
Upper Station:
On-Site Station:
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD Input File:
AERMOD Output File:
AERMOD Error File:
Plotfile list
_____________
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
_________
ConstructionCancerRisk.csv
ConstructionCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionGLCList.csv
ConstructionHRAInput.hra
ConstructionNCAcuteRisk.csv
ConstructionNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRisk.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionOutput.txt
ConstructionPathwayRec.csv
ConstructionPolDB.csv
ResidentCancerRisk.csv
ResidentCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentGLCList.csv
ResidentHRAInput.hra
ResidentNCAcuteRisk.csv
ResidentNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentNCChronicRisk.csv
ResidentNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentOutput.txt
ResidentPathwayRec.csv
ResidentPolDB.csv
WorkerCancerRisk.csv
1169
WorkerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerGLCList.csv
WorkerHRAInput.hra
WorkerNCAcuteRisk.csv
WorkerNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkerNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerOutput.txt
WorkerPathwayRec.csv
WorkerPolDB.csv
Spatial averaging files (\sa\)
_______________________
1170
HARP Project Summary Report 12/2/2025 4:13:40 PM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: 25017 - TCOE ACC HRA
Project Output Directory: C:\HARP2\Projects\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA HARP Database: NA
***FACILITY INFORMATION***
Origin
X (m):0
Y (m):0
Zone:1
No. of Sources:0
No. of Buildings:0
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:1
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProID PolID PolAbbrev
Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ PAREA1 0 0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
120 0 1
Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH22013
Official: True
PolID PolAbbrev InhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL
InhChronicREL OralChronicREL InhChronic8HRREL
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
1171
***AIR DISPERSION MODELING INFORMATION***
Versions used in HARP. All executables were obtained from USEPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling website (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/) AERMOD: 18081
AERMAP: 18081
BPIPPRM: 04274
AERPLOT: 13329
***METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION***
Version:
Surface File:
Profile File:
Surface Station:
Upper Station:
On-Site Station:
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD Input File:
AERMOD Output File:
AERMOD Error File:
Plotfile list
_____________
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
_________
ConstructionCancerRisk.csv
ConstructionCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionGLCList.csv
ConstructionHRAInput.hra
ConstructionNCAcuteRisk.csv
ConstructionNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRisk.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionOutput.txt
ConstructionPathwayRec.csv
ConstructionPolDB.csv
ResidentCancerRisk.csv
ResidentCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentGLCList.csv
ResidentHRAInput.hra
ResidentNCAcuteRisk.csv
ResidentNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentNCChronicRisk.csv
ResidentNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentOutput.txt
ResidentPathwayRec.csv
ResidentPolDB.csv
WorkerCancerRisk.csv
1172
WorkerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerGLCList.csv
WorkerHRAInput.hra
WorkerNCAcuteRisk.csv
WorkerNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkerNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerOutput.txt
WorkerPathwayRec.csv
WorkerPolDB.csv
Spatial averaging files (\sa\)
_______________________
1173
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Jesse Madsen
Owner, Principal Scienst
3560 Argyle Avenue, Clovis, CA 93612
Jesse@CoreEnvironmentalConsulng.com
(559) 202-3941
Hector Guerra December 2, 2025
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe Street, Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
Subject: Technical Memorandum – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment for Tulare County Office of Educa'on Administra'on and Conference Center Expansion This Technical Memorandum (memo) has been prepared to summarize the methodology and results of an Air Quality (AQ), Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the Tulare County Office of Educaon (TCOE) Administraon and Conference Center Expansion project (Project). TCOE proposes to expand and add facilies to its exisng Administrave Office and Conference Center (AOCC) site at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard in Tulare County near Visalia, California.
The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Inial Study is in progress. This Technical Memo focuses on the quanficaon of criteria pollutants, health risks to sensive receptors from toxic air contaminants (TAC), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Criteria pollutant emissions and health risks from TAC are also compared to numerical thresholds of significance established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District (SJVAPCD). GHG emissions, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and energy usage calculaons from the California Emissions Esmator Model (CalEEMod) are included for informaon purposes as no related numerical thresholds of significance have been established.
This Technical Memo does not include in-depth discussions on se@ng, regulatory background, pollutant descripons and sources, other impacts, or final determinaons of impact significance. Appropriate discussions on all topics not included in this Technical Memo, including the full range of consideraons for impact significance, should be included in the Inial Study. Among other consideraons, the Inial Study should include assessments for consistency with established plans and regulaons for the control of air quality and GHG.
Esmated criteria pollutant emissions and health risks from TAC would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the associated impacts would be less than significant, with regards to the numerical thresholds discussed.
Project Descrip'on
TCOE proposes to expand and add facilies to its exisng Administrave Office and Conference Center (AOCC) site at 6200 South Mooney Boulevard. TCOE has also acquired and mostly developed an adjacent parcel that will be merged with the main Project site to form a single parcel for development.
The main Project site is approximately 12.5 acres and would include:
• 108,000 square feet (sqB) of office and conference room space • 3 classrooms, with a training kitchen, totaling 6,200 sqB • 35,000 sqB of warehouse space
1174
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
• Stormwater basin, parking, vehicular access, and other site improvements The primary use of the Project will be to host professional development trainings and workshops for TCOE employees.
In addion to the expansion, TCOE previously completed construcon of an Administraon and Conference Center on an adjacent 11-acre parcel. An Inial Study and Migated Negave Declaraon (IS/MND) was completed for the previous project, which included 87,000 square feet of building space, consisng of a three-story office building, a conference center, and associated parking and site improvements. The exisng conference center is used to host conferences and educaonal training.
The exisng site would be merged with the Project for planning purposes, and the combined development parcel would be annexed into the City of Visalia. Except for the minor site work shown on the aI ached Demolion Plan, the exisng site is not included in the analyses performed for this Tech Memo because an IS/MND was previously completed and there would be no changes to operaonal characteriscs.
Project construcon will commence aBer all permits and bidding have been completed. To allow for the earliest (and most health-conservave for an AQ/GHG/HRA analysis) start date, construcon was assumed to begin January 1, 2026 and last for the default duraon esmated by CalEEMod.
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutant emissions were esmated using the latest version of CalEEMod. Land uses were modeled as follows:
• Conference room – government office building
• Classrooms – junior community college
• Warehouse – unrefrigerated warehouse, no rail
• Parking – parking lot
• Driveways – other asphalt areas
• Stormwater basin, concrete – other non-asphalt area
The operaonal characteriscs of the uses selected for the conference room, classrooms, and warehouse would overesmate the actual vehicle trips and resource usages of the Project, but were selected as health-conservave opons that most closely match based on the CalEEMod User Guide. Areas were esmated from the aI ached Site Plan.
The CalEEMod results are included as AI achment 2 and summarized in the table below, along with comparisons to the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.
1175
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Table 1 Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons per year) CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construcon Emissions (migated, worst year) 2.1 1.6 0.40 <0.005 0.28 0.15 SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operaonal Emissions 10 1.7 2.0 0.03 2.3 0.62
SJVAPCD Threshold of Significance 100 10 10 27 15 15
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reacve organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constuent and essenally equivalent PM10 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns As shown in the table above, Project construcon and operaonal emissions of criteria pollutants not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, with respect to the numerical thresholds, impacts would be less than significant.
As explained in the introducon of this Technical Memo, the Inial Study must include addional consideraons including, but not limited to, an assessment of Project consistency with established air quality plans and regulaons. The broader discussion of impact significance is deferred to the Inial Study; however, it is noted here that, generally, Projects with emissions below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance and that comply with SJVAPCD air quality plans and regulaons can be presumed to have a less-than-significant individual and cumulave impact to air quality.
It should be noted that emissions were esmated without including any non-default regulatory or migaon measures (except for Migaon Measure HRA-1). Emissions are therefore expected to be lower with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures. Some of the impacMul measures include clean vehicle and fuel regulaons, the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), an-idling, SJVAPCD Regulaon VIII (Fugive PM10 Prohibions), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review).
Ambient Air Quality
The exposure of sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons can occur if the Project would result in localized exceedances of Naonal or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS/CAAQS), or if Project emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance (discussed in the HRA secon below). SJVAPCD has determined that, if maximum Project criteria pollutant emissions are below 100 pounds per day for each pollutant, it can be concluded that the Project would not result in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS and no further Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) is required.
Following the SJVAPCD methodology presented in Applicaon Review Policies (APR) 2030 (Project Ambient Air Quality Analysis Applicability Determinaon under CEQA)1, the Project was first assessed to determine whether it would be subject to Indirect Source Review (ISR). The Project site is over the square footage thresholds listed in Rule 9510 and would therefore be subject. Maximum daily criteria pollutants resulng from construcon and operaon were then calculated as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above. 1 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District , 2018) 1176
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Maximum daily criteria pollutant emissions are compared to the 100-lb-per-day AAQA applicability threshold in the table below.
Table 2 Maximum Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions Compared to AAQA Screening Threshold (lb/day) CONSTRUCTION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construcon Emissions (max daily, worst year, worst season) 29 29 38 0.05 21 11 Exceeds 100 lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
OPERATION CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5
Operaonal Emissions (max daily, worst season) 94 13 15 0.21 18 4.7 Exceeds 100 lb/day? NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO = carbon monoxide
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
ROG = reacve organic gases
SOx = oxides of sulfur; sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the primary constuent and essenally equivalent PM10 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns PM2.5 = parculate ma(er with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns It is worth nong that, although the worst daily operaonal CO emissions are esmated to come near the 100 pound per day threshold, the emissions are an overesmaon compared to actual operaonal characteriscs and, more important, an AAQA is only required to consider on-site emissions and off-site emissions within ¼ mile of the project boundary. Since most of the emissions are from vehicle trips, with trip lengths averaging over 9 miles, the onsite CO emissions for consideraon under an AAQA would be far lower.
As shown in the table above, none of the criteria pollutants would exceed 100 pounds per day, during construcon or operaon. Therefore, no further AAQA is required and the Project would not expose sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons by resulng in a localized exceedance of NAAQS or CAAQS. With respect to the numerical threshold established by SJVAPCD, the associated impact would be less than significant. No migaon is required outside of compliance with exisng regulaons. As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions are expected to be further reduced with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
Health Risk Assessment
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in this Technical Memo was prepared in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparaon of Health Risk Assessments2; SJVAPCD Policy APR 1906 – Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments3 and Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling4. The reader is encouraged to reference those sources, along with the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Migang Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI)5 for in-depth discussions regarding se@ng, regulatory background, pollutant descripons, and HRA methodologies, as this Technical Memo includes only a crical summary of the project-specific HRA methodology and results.
The primary Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) of concern include diesel parculate maI er (DPM) emissions from dieselfueled construcon vehicle and equipment use. Operaon would not include any substanal sources of DPM or any other substanal sources of TAC.
2 (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asssessment, 2015) 3 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2020) 4 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2022a) 5 (San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District, 2015) 1177
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
The United States Environmental Protecon Agency’s (U.S. EPA) American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model was used to model the annual downwind air concentraon at nearby receptors, based on a normalized emission rate of one gram per second. Meteorological data was obtained from SJVAPCD (Visalia met site); CARB and SJVAPCD recommended modeling parameters were used throughout.
Construcon emissions were modeled as an area source with dimensions matching the Project site. Discrete worker and residenal receptors were added based on business and residence locaons shown on the imported Google Earth base map; a total of 36 receptors were added for a representave analysis. Terrain was added using the built in WebGIS tool.
Construcon DPM emissions were esmated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above.
SJVAPCD considers PM10 exhaust to be a reasonable surrogate for DPM, and the maximum (worst year) annual emissions were used for subsequent calculaons.
Normalized downwind air concentraons for each receptor (modeled in the step above) were imported into the CARB Hotspots Analysis and Reporng Program (HARP2) Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool (ADMRT) and combined with the toxic emissions data to esmate the ground level concentraons of TAC at each receptor. A separate run was performed for worker risk because the highest risk receptor would be at the exisng TCOE facilies just west of the site. The exposure duraon was set to two years, rounded up from the 1.3 year construcon meline. The construcon risk calculaons included the area source described in the modeling above and annual emissions of DPM. OEHHA has not established a Reference Exposure Level (REL) for 8-hour chronic, or acute health risk from DPM. Thus, the 8-hour chronic and acute HI are not calculated, except in unusual situaons such as when a sensive receptor is located directly above the emission release point (e.g., on a hillside or in a mulstory apartment building).
Results of the AERMOD modeling and ADMRT calculaons are included as AI achment 3, along with a map of receptors. Modeling input and output files will be made available to reviewing agencies upon request. The highest risks calculated for each scenario are presented in the table below, along with comparisons to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. All results are the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for each scenario.
Table 3 Health Risk Assessment Results Compared to Thresholds of Significance RISK
CARCINOGEN
(risk in one million) CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
Construcon Health Risk 15.7 (Receptor 6) 0.0092 (Receptor 6) Thresholds of Significance 20 1
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO
1No HI calculated for Construcon DPM Acute risk because OEHHA has not established REL.
As shown in the table above, the highest risks occurred at Receptor 6, a residence located adjacent to the north side of the Project site. Inial calculaons indicated that the highest risks could occur at Receptor 28; however, that receptor locaon is an exisng TCOE facility adjacent to the west side of the Project site. Risks were recalculated for Receptor 28 as a worker and the results were substanally lower than the risks to residenal Receptor 6 and well under the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.
Calculated risks would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not expose sensive receptors to substanal pollutant concentraons resulng from TAC emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions would be further reduced with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
1178
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
Greenhouse Gases, Vehicle Miles Travelled, and Energy Use Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), and Energy use were all esmated using CalEEMod, as described in the Criteria Pollutants secon above. The full detailed report is included in AI achment 2 CalEEMod Results. Summaries are provided in the tables below for informaon purposes only. No discussion is provided in this Technical Memo regarding impact significance. As discussed in the Criteria Pollutants secon above, emissions are expected to be even lower with implementaon of all State, regional, and local measures.
Table 4 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) CONSTRUCTION BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Construcon Emissions (worst year) --- 339 339 0.01 0.01 0.04 342 OPERATION BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
Operaonal Emissions 18.7 5,035 5,054 2.35 0.42 741 5,979 BCO2 = biogenic carbon dioxide
NBCO2 = non-biogenic (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide
CO2T = total carbon dioxide
CH4 = methane
N2O = nitrous oxide
R = refrigerants
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents (total)
Table 5 Project Energy Use by Land Use
LAND USE ELECTRICITY (kWh/yr) NATURAL GAS (kBTU/yr)
Government Office Building (Conference Center) 2,084,306 3,968,973 Junior College (Classrooms) 64,808 277,206
Unrefrigerated Warehouse – No Rail 187,044 581,580
Parking Lot 70,255 0
TOTAL 2,406,413 4,827,759
kWh/yr = kilowa(-hours per year
kBTU/yr = thousand Brish Thermal Units per year
Table 6 Project Opera4onal Mobile Sources
LAND USE Trips/
Weekday
Trips/
Saturday
Trips/
Sunday
Trips/
Year
VMT/
Weekday
VMT/
Saturday
VMT/
Sunday VMT/ Year
Government Office
Building
(Conference Center)
2,440 0 0 636,070 22,867 0 0 5,961,848
Junior College
(Classrooms)
126 70 7.5 36,754 1,177 653 70 344,497
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse – No
Rail
61 61 61 22,229 571 571 571 208,346
TOTAL 2,627 131 69 695,053 24,615 1,224 641 6,514,691
VMT = vehicle miles travelled
1179
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM – CEQA AQ/GHG/HRA May 2025
TCOE Administraon and Conference Center Expansion
References
Associaon of Environmental Professionals. (2025). 2025 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines.
California Air Polluon Control Officers Associaon. (2022). California Emissions Esmator Model.
Retrieved from hI ps://caleemod.com/.
California Air Resources Board. (2022a). HARP Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-air-dispersion-modeling-and-risk-tool.
California Air Resources Board. (2024). Non-Vehicular Diesel Engine Risk Assessment Guidance. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/non-vehicular-diesel-engine-riskassessment-guidance.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Asssessment. (2015). Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparaon of Health Risk Assessments. Retrieved from hI ps://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District . (2018). APR 2030 - Project Ambient Air Quality Analysis Applicability Determinaon under CEQA. Retrieved from
hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/50ahzpwc/apr-2030.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2015). Guidance for Assessing and Migang Air Quality Impacts. Retrieved from hI ps://www.valleyair.org/transportaon/GAMAQI.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2020). Policy APR 1906 - Framework for Performing Health Risk Assessments. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/0shm0mlk/apr1906.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2022a). Guidance for Air Dispersion Modeling. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/zlbhrg22/modeling_guidance.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley Air Polluon Control District. (2024). APR 1925 - Policy for District Rule 2201 AAQA Modeling. Retrieved from hI ps://ww2.valleyair.org/media/341fy4sn/apr-1925-rule-2201-aaqamodeling-may-2024.pdf.
ADachments: A5achment 1 Site Plans; A5achment 2 CalEEMod Results; A5achment 3 HRA Results. 1180
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO
PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO PARKING NO PARKING
CHARGING NO PARKING
EV EV CHARGING
ONLY ONLY
NO
PARKING
VAN
NO PARKING NO PARKING
VAN NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN
NO
PARKING
EV ONLY CHARGING
VAN
ONLY
EV CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGINGEV ONLY CHARGING
ONLY
EV CHARGING
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKING
4 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" north 600 BLDG. 200 BLDG. 300 BLDG. 400 BLDG. 100 BLDG. 500 BLDG. NEW BUILDING SITE PLAN LEGEND: CTR 1 PT 7 PT 3 PT 4 PT 6 PT 5 (E) BUILDING ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS, SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR GENDER PROPERTY LINE NEW CONCRETE PAVING NEW ASPHALT PAVING CONTROL POINT, SEE TABLE ON SD2 PT 2 PT 1 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL PER DSA #02-113439 DSA #02-113439 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL SD15 SD2 PATH OF TRAVEL (P.O.T.) AS VERIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT IS: - A COMMON BARRIER FREE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT LEAST 48" WIDE WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" BEVELED AT 1:2 MAXIMUM SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL. - THE PATH SURFACE IS SLIP RESISTANT, STABLE, FIRM, AND SMOOTH. - PASSING SPACES AT LEAST 60" x 60" ARE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN 200' APART (11B-403.5.3). - CONTINUOUS GRADIENTS HAVE 60" LEVEL AREAS NOT MORE THAN 400' APART (11B-403.7). - CROSS-SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2%. - SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IS 5% OR LESS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AS A RAMP. - MAINTAIN P.O.T. FREE OF OVERHANGING OBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM, PROTRUDING OBJECTS GREATER THAN 4" PROJECTION FROM WALL OR EDGE AND 27" ABOVE FINISH GRADE (11B-307.2). - GRATING LOCATED IN THE SURFACE OF ANY PEDESTRIAN WAY IN THE P.O.T. SHALL HAVE GRID/OPENINGS IN GRATING LIMITED TO 1/2" MAXIMUM CLEAR IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL FLOW 1 ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL :2 GATE ACCESS NOTE: ALL C.L. AND DECORATIVE METAL 4'-0" WIDE GATES IN THE PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL HAVE LEVER-TYPE LATCH AND 10" HIGH KICKPLATES SECURE TO C.L. MESH BOTH SIDES, 5LBS MAX FORCE TO PUSH OR PULL OPEN (11B-404.2.9) AND 5BLS MAX TO ACTIVATE OPERABLE PARTS (11B-304.9) AND STRIKE SIDE (MANEUVERING) CLEARANCE PER. CBC 11B-404.2.4.1. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING: NEW ACCESSIBLE PARKING, SEE SHEET SD8 PARKING LOT 1: 383 EXISTING PARKING STALLS PER DSA# 02-113439. 8 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 7 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 9 > 8 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 2: 122 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 5 = 5 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 3: 200 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 7 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 4 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 7 = 7 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 4: 17 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 1 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL PROVIDED, 1 = 1 THEREFORE OK. PARKING LOT 5: 51 PARKING STALLS PER THIS APPLICATION. 3 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED. 2 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS AND 2 ACCESSIBLE VAN STALLS PROVIDED, 4 > 3 THEREFORE OK.4 PASSENGER LOADING ZONES: DROP-OFF ZONES SHALL PROVIDE AN ACCESS AISLE AT LEAST 60" WIDE AND 20' LONG ADJACENT AND PARALLEL TO THE VEHICLE PULL UP SPACE. SUCH ZONES SHALL BE LOCATED ON A SURFACE WITH A SLOPE NOT OVER 2% SITE PLAN KEYNOTES:
1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 2 PARKING LOT 3 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 1 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 5 PARKING LOT 4 50'-0" MIN. 50'-0" MIN. SAFE DISPERSAL AREA: DISPERSAL AREA = 25,626 S.F. 25,626 S.F. / 5 S.F. = 5,125 OCCUPANTS 140 STUDENTS + 4,309 STAFF = 4,449 OCCUPANTS 5,125 > 4,449 THEREFORE OK 2 + 3 + 4 (PUBLIC PARKING) 5 (FLEETPARKING) EV CAPABLE REQ'D 68 # OF STALLS 338 50 10 LOT # EV PARKING 3 3
3 3
2 2
22 2 REFER TO ENLARGED SITE PLANS, SHEETS SD4-SD7 FOR LOCATION OF EV CAPABLE STALLS AND EV CHARGERS. EV CHARGERS REQ'D 18 3 # OF EV CHARGERS 1848 # OF EV CAPABLE 6848 SAFE DISPERSAL AREA S MOONEY BLVD STRUCTURE NOT PART OF THIS REVIEW OR APPROVAL STRUCTURE NOT PART OF THIS REVIEW OR APPROVAL SD1 OVERALL SITE PLAN F:\01 Projects\23098\Drawings\01 Architectural\03 Sheets\23098_SD1 - Overall Site Plan.dwg Aug 25 2025 8:49am 23098 PROJECT TITLE
TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA
NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION
REVISIONS
MANGINI
ARCHITECTURE
INGENUITY
MANGINI ASSOCIATES INC.
4320 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
www.mangini.us
(559) 627.0530 Office
(559) 627.1926 Fax DATE: JANUARY 24, 2025 APPLICATION # 02-122991 FILE # 54-118APPROVALS EXISTING BUILDG 100 ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE PLANS
1181
IRR
IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR IRR
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
NO PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO
PARKING
EV CHARGING
ONLY NO PARKING DEMO SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 60'-0" north DEMO SITE PLAN LEGEND: DEMO SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: (E) BUILDING (E) CONCRETE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) ASPHALT TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) OBJECT TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHAIN LINK FENCE, PROTECT (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED, FILL & COMPACT ALL HOLES LEFT BY REMOVAL OF ROOT-BALLS. PROPERTY LINE D1 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB TO REMAIN 100 BLDG. DSA #02-113439 D2 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER TO REMAIN D3 EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN D4 EXISTING UTILITY BOX TO REMAIN D5 EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE TO REMAIN D6D7D8 EXISTING LIGHT POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE TO REMAIN D9 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB D10 REMOVE EXISTING RIVER ROCK D11 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN, SEE CIVIL DWGS. D12 D13 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER D14 EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE D15 REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE D16 D17 D18 D19 EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINER TO BE SALVAGED TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER REMOVE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCING/GATE PT 2 PT 1 CONTROL POINT D20 EXISTING DRAIN INLET TO REMAIN D21 EXISTING TURF OR PLANTER TO REMAIN REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING REMOVE EXISTING PLANT/TREE D21 D21 D17 D6 D6 D6 D6 D17 D17 D19 D20 D7 D11 D4 D18 D5 D2 D15 D9 D5 D10 D12 D1 D9 D4 D16 D10 D3 D13 D14 D5 D12 D1 D8D8 D8 D2 D13 D7 D7 D16 D17 SD3 DEMO SITE PLAN F:\01 Projects\23098\Drawings\01 Architectural\03 Sheets\23098_SD3 - Demo Site Plan.dwg Aug 25 2025 8:49am 23098 PROJECT TITLE
TULARE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
VISALIA, TULARE COUNTY, CA
NEW ADMINISTRATION
FACILITY EXPANSION
REVISIONS
MANGINI
ARCHITECTURE
INGENUITY
MANGINI ASSOCIATES INC.
4320 West Mineral King Avenue
Visalia, California 93291
www.mangini.us
(559) 627.0530 Office
(559) 627.1926 Fax DATE: JANUARY 24, 2025 APPLICATION # 02-122991 FILE # 54-118APPROVALS 1182
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
1 / 56
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 2 - CalEEMod
Results
1183
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
2 / 56
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - 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
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
1184
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
3 / 56
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
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
1185
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
4 / 56
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
5.10.2. 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
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
1186
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
5 / 56
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
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1187
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
6 / 56
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
8.1. Justifications
1188
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
7 / 56
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run)
Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 1.9
Precipitation (days) 24
Location 11836 Avenue 264, Visalia, CA 93277, USA
County Tulare
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2784
EDFZ 9
Electric Utility Eastside Power Authority
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.35
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
Government Office
Building
108 1000sqft 2.5 108,000 0.00 0.00 — —
1189
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
8 / 56
Junior College (2yr) 6.2 1000sqft 0.14 6,200 0.00 0.00 — — Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
35 1000sqft 0.80 35,000 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
100 1000sqft 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 80 1000sqft 1.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
33 1000sqft 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
20 1000sqft 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
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. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.6 1.4 11 16 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.81 0.36 0.10 0.46 — 3,219 3,219 0.13 0.11 2.4 3,258 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 38 38 29 29 0.05 1.2 20 21 1.1 10 11 — 5,389 5,389 0.22 0.11 0.06 5,409 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.2 2.2 8.9 11 0.02 0.34 1.2 1.5 0.31 0.53 0.84 — 2,332 2,332 0.09 0.07 0.60 2,355 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1190
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
9 / 56
Unmit. 0.41 0.40 1.6 2.1 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.10 0.15 — 386 386 0.02 0.01 0.10 390
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.6 1.4 11 16 0.03 0.39 0.42 0.81 0.36 0.10 0.46 — 3,219 3,219 0.13 0.11 2.4 3,258 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 3.8 3.2 29 29 0.05 1.2 20 21 1.1 10 11 — 5,389 5,389 0.22 0.11 0.06 5,409 2027 38 38 10 15 0.03 0.34 0.42 0.77 0.32 0.10 0.42 — 3,168 3,168 0.12 0.11 0.05 3,204 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.3 1.1 8.9 11 0.02 0.34 1.2 1.5 0.31 0.53 0.84 — 2,332 2,332 0.09 0.07 0.60 2,355 2027 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.6 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.04 — 290 290 0.01 0.01 0.07 293 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23 0.19 1.6 2.1 < 0.005 0.06 0.21 0.28 0.06 0.10 0.15 — 386 386 0.02 0.01 0.10 390 2027 0.41 0.40 0.19 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 48 48 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 49
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16 15 11 94 0.21 0.28 17 18 0.27 4.4 4.7 133 25,312 25,446 15 1.1 65 26,213 1191
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
10 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 14 13 13 72 0.19 0.27 17 18 0.26 4.4 4.7 133 23,537 23,670 15 1.2 2.0 24,398 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12 11 9.1 57 0.15 0.23 12 13 0.22 3.2 3.4 133 18,731 18,864 14 0.89 20 19,511 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.1 2.0 1.7 10 0.03 0.04 2.3 2.3 0.04 0.58 0.62 22 3,101 3,123 2.4 0.15 3.4 3,230
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11 11 10.0 86 0.20 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 20,604 20,604 0.76 0.96 64 20,974 Area 4.6 4.5 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 16 15 11 94 0.21 0.28 17 18 0.27 4.4 4.7 133 25,312 25,446 15 1.1 65 26,213 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10 9.4 11 71 0.18 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 18,855 18,855 0.86 1.0 1.7 19,186 Area 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 1192
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
11 / 56
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 14 13 13 72 0.19 0.27 17 18 0.26 4.4 4.7 133 23,537 23,670 15 1.2 2.0 24,398 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.5 6.9 7.8 53 0.14 0.12 12 13 0.12 3.2 3.3 — 14,036 14,036 0.59 0.72 20 14,286 Area 4.0 3.9 0.03 3.2 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13 Energy 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 4,535 4,535 0.35 0.03 — 4,553 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00 — 267
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Total 12 11 9.1 57 0.15 0.23 12 13 0.22 3.2 3.4 133 18,731 18,864 14 0.89 20 19,511 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.4 1.3 1.4 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.3 2.3 0.02 0.58 0.60 — 2,324 2,324 0.10 0.12 3.3 2,365 Area 0.73 0.72 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2 Energy 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 751 751 0.06 < 0.005 — 754 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 9.5 24 34 0.97 0.02 — 65
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00 — 44
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 2.1 2.0 1.7 10 0.03 0.04 2.3 2.3 0.04 0.58 0.62 22 3,101 3,123 2.4 0.15 3.4 3,230
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1193
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
12 / 56
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.7 2.3 21 19 0.03 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 — 3,427 3,427 0.14 0.03 — 3,438 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.13 1.1 1.0 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1194
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
13 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78 78 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.5 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 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.7 3.1 29 29 0.05 1.2 — 1.2 1.1 — 1.1 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 1195
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
14 / 56
Dust — — — — — — 20 20 — 10 10 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.09 0.80 0.79 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.14 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 91 91 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 93 1196
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
15 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.6 2.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.0 1.6 15 17 0.03 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,960 2,960 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.1 7.1 — 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — —
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 0.00 1197
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
16 / 56
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.82 0.96 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.15 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 78 78 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.5 4.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.51198 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
17 / 56
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.3 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.3 1.1 9.9 13 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1199
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
18 / 56
Off-Roa 0.73 0.61 5.6 7.4 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,370 1,370 0.06 0.01 — 1,375 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 1.0 1.4 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 227 227 0.01 < 0.005 — 228 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.26 0.14 2.3 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 306 306 0.02 0.01 1.1 312 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.71 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 516 516 0.01 0.08 1.3 541 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.22 0.18 1.8 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 271 271 0.02 0.01 0.03 276 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.76 0.27 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 516 516 0.01 0.08 0.03 540 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.14 0.13 0.09 1.1 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 161 161 0.01 0.01 0.27 164 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.42 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 — 295 295 0.01 0.04 0.31 309 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 27 1200
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
19 / 56
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49 49 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 51 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.2 1.0 9.4 13 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.57 0.78 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 24 24 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1201
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
20 / 56
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.16 1.6 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 266 266 0.01 0.01 0.03 270 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.72 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.01 0.04 0.05 — 506 506 0.01 0.08 0.03 529 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 17 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 32 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.8 2.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.1 5.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1202
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
21 / 56
Off-Roa 0.88 0.74 6.9 10.0 0.01 0.30 — 0.30 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
Paving 0.30 0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.38 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 83 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83 Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 77 77 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 78 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1203
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
22 / 56
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.4 4.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.72 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 0.83 1.1 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
38 38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.3 7.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.3 1204
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
23 / 56
Architect
Coatings
2.1 2.1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.2 1.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.2 Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.38 0.38 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 53 53 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 54 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.0 3.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.50 0.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1205 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
24 / 56
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
10 9.8 9.3 80 0.19 0.16 16 16 0.15 4.1 4.3 — 19,142 19,142 0.71 0.89 60 19,485 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.54 0.50 0.48 4.1 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 — 985 985 0.04 0.05 3.1 1,003 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.26 0.24 0.23 2.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 — 478 478 0.02 0.02 1.5 486 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 11 11 10.0 86 0.20 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 20,604 20,604 0.76 0.96 64 20,974 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1206
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
25 / 56
Govern
Office
Building
9.5 8.7 11 66 0.17 0.16 16 16 0.15 4.1 4.3 — 17,517 17,517 0.80 0.96 1.6 17,824 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.49 0.45 0.55 3.4 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.21 0.22 — 901 901 0.04 0.05 0.08 917 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.24 0.22 0.26 1.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 — 437 437 0.02 0.02 0.04 445 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10 9.4 11 71 0.18 0.17 17 18 0.16 4.4 4.6 — 18,855 18,855 0.86 1.0 1.7 19,186 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
1.2 1.2 1.3 8.8 0.02 0.02 2.1 2.1 0.02 0.53 0.55 — 2,127 2,127 0.09 0.11 3.1 2,165 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.07 0.07 0.08 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 0.01 0.01 0.18 125 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.04 0.04 0.05 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 74 74 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 76 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 1207
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
26 / 56
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.4 1.3 1.4 9.6 0.03 0.02 2.3 2.3 0.02 0.58 0.60 — 2,324 2,324 0.10 0.12 3.3 2,365
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,588 2,588 0.19 0.02 — 2,600
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — 80 80 0.01 < 0.005 — 81
Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — — 232 232 0.02 < 0.005 — 233
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 87 87 0.01 < 0.005 — 88
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,988 2,988 0.22 0.03 — 3,001 1208
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
27 / 56
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
———————————— 2,588 2,588 0.19 0.02— 2,600
Junior
College
(2yr)
———————————— 80 80 0.01 < 0.005— 81
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 232 232 0.02 < 0.005— 233
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
———————————— 87 87 0.01 < 0.005— 88
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
———————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total———————————— 2,988 2,988 0.22 0.03— 3,001
Annual——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
———————————— 428 428 0.03 < 0.005— 430
Junior
College
(2yr)
———————————— 13 13 < 0.005 < 0.005— 13
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
———————————— 38 38 < 0.005 < 0.005— 39
1209
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
28 / 56
Other — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14 14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 495 495 0.04 < 0.005 — 497
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.12 0.06 1.1 0.90 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,272 1,272 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,276 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89 89 0.01 < 0.005 — 89 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 186 186 0.02 < 0.005 — 187 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 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 1210
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
29 / 56
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,547 1,547 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,552 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.12 0.06 1.1 0.90 0.01 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,272 1,272 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,276 Junior
College
(2yr)
0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 89 89 0.01 < 0.005 — 89 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
0.02 0.01 0.16 0.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 186 186 0.02 < 0.005 — 187 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 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 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 Total 0.14 0.07 1.3 1.1 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,547 1,547 0.14 < 0.005 — 1,552 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
0.02 0.01 0.19 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 211 211 0.02 < 0.005 — 211 Junior
College
(2yr)
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15 15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15 1211
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
30 / 56
Unrefrig < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31 31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31 erated
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 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 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 Total 0.03 0.01 0.24 0.20 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 256 256 0.02 < 0.005 — 257
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
3.2 3.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
1.2 1.1 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 Total 4.6 4.5 0.05 6.5 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27 27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27 1212
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
31 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Consum
er
Product
s
3.2 3.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 3.4 3.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Product
s
0.59 0.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2 Total 0.73 0.72 < 0.005 0.58 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.2 2.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.2
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1213
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
32 / 56
Govern
Office
Building
——————————— 41 105 146 4.2 0.10— 282
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.58 1.5 2.1 0.06 < 0.005— 4.0
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 16 40 55 1.6 0.04— 106
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 57 146 203 5.9 0.14— 392
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 41 105 146 4.2 0.10— 282
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.58 1.5 2.1 0.06 < 0.005— 4.0
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 16 40 55 1.6 0.04— 106
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
1214
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
33 / 56
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 57 146 203 5.9 0.14 — 392
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 6.8 17 24 0.70 0.02 — 47
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.25 0.34 0.01 < 0.005 — 0.66 Unrefrig
erated
Wareho
use-No
Rail
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.6 6.6 9.1 0.26 0.01 — 18
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.5 24 34 0.97 0.02 — 65
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1215
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
34 / 56
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 54 0.00 54 5.4 0.00— 189
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 4.3 0.00 4.3 0.43 0.00— 15
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00— 62
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00— 267
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 54 0.00 54 5.4 0.00— 189
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 4.3 0.00 4.3 0.43 0.00— 15
1216
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
35 / 56
Unrefrig——————————— 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00— 62
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 76 0.00 76 7.6 0.00— 267
Annual——————————————————
Govern
ment
Office
Building
——————————— 9.0 0.00 9.0 0.90 0.00— 31
Junior
College
(2yr)
——————————— 0.72 0.00 0.72 0.07 0.00— 2.5
Unrefrig
erated Wareho
use-No
Rail
——————————— 2.9 0.00 2.9 0.29 0.00— 10
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Parking
Lot
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
——————————— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00
Total——————————— 13 0.00 13 1.3 0.00— 44
1217
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
36 / 56
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.26 0.26
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.02
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.29 0.29
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Govern
ment
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Junior
College
(2yr)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005
1218
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
37 / 56
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1219
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
38 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 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) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1220
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
39 / 56
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1221
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
40 / 56
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——————————————————
———————————————————
1222
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
41 / 56
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/29/2026 5.0 20 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/30/2026 2/13/2026 5.0 10.0 — Grading Grading 2/14/2026 3/14/2026 5.0 20 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/15/2026 1/31/2027 5.0 230 — Paving Paving 2/1/2027 3/1/2027 5.0 20 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/2/2027 3/30/2027 5.0 20 —
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 8.0 33 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 36 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.0 8.0 84 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 36 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.0 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.0 8.0 82 0.20 1223 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
42 / 56
Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 14 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.0 7.0 84 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.0 46 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 81 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 89 0.36
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.0 8.0 36 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.0 37 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 Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation Worker 18 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction Worker 52 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 24 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT 1224
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
43 / 56
Paving Worker 15 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating Worker 10 7.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 6.8 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 223,800 74,600 14,016
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Site Preparation — — 15 0.00 0.00
Grading — — 20 0.00 0.00
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.4
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
1225
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
44 / 56
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Phase Name Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Paving Government Office Building 0.00 0%
Paving Junior College (2yr) 0.00 0%
Paving Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0%
Paving Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 2.3 0%
Paving Parking Lot 1.8 100%
Paving Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.77 0%
Paving Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.46 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Government Office
Building
2,440 0.00 0.00 636,070 22,867 0.00 0.00 5,961,848
Junior College (2yr) 126 70 7.5 36,754 1,177 653 70 344,497 Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No Rail
61 61 61 22,229 571 571 571 208,346
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1226 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
45 / 56
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Government Office Building Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building No Fireplaces 0 0
Government Office Building Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0 Government Office Building Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Government Office Building Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Government Office Building Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) No Fireplaces 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Junior College (2yr) Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Gas Fireplaces 0 0
1227
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
46 / 56
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Propane Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Electric Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail No Fireplaces00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Conventional Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Catalytic Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Wood Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Gas Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Propane Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Electric Fireplaces00
Parking Lot No Fireplaces00
Parking Lot Conventional Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves00
Parking Lot Pellet Wood Stoves00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces00
1228
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
47 / 56
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces No Fireplaces 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
— Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
undefined 0.00 0.00 223,800 74,600 14,016
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
1229
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
48 / 56
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) Government Office Building 2,084,306 453 0.0330 0.0040 3,968,973 Junior College (2yr) 64,808 453 0.0330 0.0040 277,206
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail
187,044 453 0.0330 0.0040 581,580
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 70,255 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 453 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) Government Office Building 21,455,246 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 304,104 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 8,093,750 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
1230
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
49 / 56
Government Office Building 100 0.00
Junior College (2yr) 8.1 0.00
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 33 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Government Office
Building
Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Junior College (2yr) Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Junior College (2yr) Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
Junior College (2yr) Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.5 7.5 20
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
1231
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
50 / 56
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
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. 1232 25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
51 / 56
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 36 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 1.3 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — 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 5 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 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.
1233
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
52 / 56
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 89
AQ-PM 98
AQ-DPM 44
Drinking Water 68
Lead Risk Housing 21
1234
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
53 / 56
Pesticides 90
Toxic Releases 68
Traffic 31
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 32
Groundwater 71
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 62
Impaired Water Bodies 12
Solid Waste 36
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 47
Cardio-vascular 54
Low Birth Weights 38
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 49
Housing 8.5
Linguistic 8.5
Poverty 60
Unemployment 67
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 54.27948159
Employed 86.78301039
Median HI 46.70858463
Education —
1235
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
54 / 56
Bachelor's or higher 50.28872065
High school enrollment 17.31040678
Preschool enrollment 17.29757475
Transportation—
Auto Access 69.12613884
Active commuting 2.24560503
Social—
2-parent households 52.58565379
Voting 71.60272039
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 58.44989093
Park access 19.90247658
Retail density 23.36712434
Supermarket access 40.27973823
Tree canopy 17.1435904
Housing—
Homeownership 62.86410882
Housing habitability 68.20223277
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 76.65853972 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 42.61516746
Uncrowded housing 57.46182471
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 65.30219428
Arthritis 38.0
Asthma ER Admissions 41.2
High Blood Pressure 43.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 29.3
Asthma 43.1
1236
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
55 / 56
Coronary Heart Disease 43.7
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 40.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 65.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 27.8
Cognitively Disabled 16.7
Physically Disabled 22.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 53.6
Mental Health Not Good 48.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 36.0
Pedestrian Injuries 58.4
Physical Health Not Good 51.8
Stroke 45.2
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 30.9
Current Smoker 52.6
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 50.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 36.4
Elderly 42.6
English Speaking 73.5
Foreign-born 17.6
Outdoor Workers 29.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 62.2
Traffic Density 45.5
1237
25017 TCOE ACC (1st Run) Detailed Report, 12/2/2025
56 / 56
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 62.3
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 60
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 49
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
8.1. Justifications
1238
TCOE ACC
25017 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
Core Environmental
Consulting
Clovis, CA 93612
(559) 202-3941 12/1/25 DATE JMDRAWN BY
RECEPTOR
MAP
NOT TO SCALE SCALE 36.273752, -119.309346 LAT/LONG
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 3 - HRA RESULTS
1239
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc SCALE:
0.5 km
1:19,693
PROJECT TITLE:
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
12/2/2025
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
RECEPTORS:
37 OUTPUT TYPE:
Concentration
MAX:
590 ug/m^3
1240
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc SCALE:
0.5 km
1:19,693
PROJECT TITLE:
C:\Lakes\AERMOD View\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA.isc COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
12/2/2025
PROJECT NO.:
SOURCES:
RECEPTORS:
37 OUTPUT TYPE:
Concentration
MAX:
39.4 ug/m^3
1241
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**12/2/2025
**Exported Risk Results
REC X Y RISK_SUM SCENARIO INHAL_RISK
1 292612.9 4016982 1.06E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.06E-05 2 292546.9 4016987 1.32E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.32E-05 3 292473.2 4016983 1.56E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-05 4 292502.4 4017038 8.84E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.84E-06 5 292582.4 4017042 6.53E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 6.53E-06 6 292390.7 4016980 1.57E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.57E-05 7 292331 4016982 1.35E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.35E-05 8 292366.6 4017038 1.03E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.03E-05 9 292328.5 4017081 7.84E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.84E-06 10 292411 4017088 7.19E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.19E-06 11 292540.5 4017119 4.19E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.19E-06 12 292799.3 4017140 1.69E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.69E-06 13 293079.8 4016898 1.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.29E-06 14 293035.5 4016757 3.32E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.32E-06 15 293060.9 4016544 5.22E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.22E-06 16 292763.4 4016421 8.47E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.47E-06 17 292565.1 4016290 1.99E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.99E-06 18 292829.4 4016317 5.43E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.43E-06 19 292336.4 4015880 3.50E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.50E-07 20 293107 4016306 4.69E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.69E-06 21 293464.3 4016480 1.59E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.59E-06 22 293209 4016829 1.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.29E-06 23 292586.3 4017485 8.90E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 8.90E-07 24 292093.4 4017096 5.41E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.41E-06 25 292130.3 4016719 3.58E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.58E-06 26 291974.8 4016717 2.31E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.31E-06 27 291985.3 4016387 5.97E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 5.97E-07 28 292373 4016885 2.33E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.33E-05 Resident value 28 292372.8 4016885 3.52E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 3.52E-07 Worker value 29 292328 4016735 1.01E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.01E-05 30 292322.7 4016667 4.29E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.29E-06 31 292317.5 4016574 2.26E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 2.26E-06 32 292449.3 4016675 1.56E-05 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-05 33 292420.3 4016590 4.36E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.36E-06 34 292138.2 4016588 1.56E-06 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 1.56E-06 35 292104 4016419 7.65E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 7.65E-07 36 292111.9 4016248 4.22E-07 2YrCancerDerived_Inh 4.22E-07 1242
**HARP - Air Dispersion Modeling and Risk Tool v22118
**12/2/2025
**Exported Risk Results
REC X Y SCENARIO RESP MAXHI
1 292612.9 4016982 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.006183 0.006183 2 292546.9 4016987 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.007694 0.007694 3 292473.2 4016983 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009095 0.009095 4 292502.4 4017038 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.005169 0.005169 5 292582.4 4017042 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003816 0.003816 6 292390.7 4016980 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009165 0.009165 7 292331 4016982 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.007895 0.007895 8 292366.6 4017038 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.006008 0.006008 9 292328.5 4017081 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004583 0.004583 10 292411 4017088 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004203 0.004203 11 292540.5 4017119 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00245 0.00245 12 292799.3 4017140 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000991 0.000991 13 293079.8 4016898 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000755 0.000755 14 293035.5 4016757 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00194 0.00194 15 293060.9 4016544 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003054 0.003054 16 292763.4 4016421 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.004951 0.004951 17 292565.1 4016290 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.001161 0.001161 18 292829.4 4016317 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003177 0.003177 19 292336.4 4015880 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000205 0.000205 20 293107 4016306 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002744 0.002744 21 293464.3 4016480 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00093 0.00093 22 293209 4016829 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000756 0.000756 23 292586.3 4017485 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00052 0.00052 24 292093.4 4017096 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.003166 0.003166 25 292130.3 4016719 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002093 0.002093 26 291974.8 4016717 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00135 0.00135 27 291985.3 4016387 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000349 0.000349 28 292373 4016885 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.01362 0.01362 Resident Value 28 292372.8 4016885 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.013617 0.013617 Worker Value 29 292328 4016735 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.005905 0.005905 30 292322.7 4016667 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.002508 0.002508 31 292317.5 4016574 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00132 0.00132 32 292449.3 4016675 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.009102 0.009102 33 292420.3 4016590 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00255 0.00255 34 292138.2 4016588 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.00091 0.00091 35 292104 4016419 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000447 0.000447 36 292111.9 4016248 NonCancerChronicDerived_Inh 0.000247 0.000247 1243
HARP Project Summary Report 12/2/2025 4:11:33 PM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: 25017 - TCOE ACC HRA
Project Output Directory: C:\HARP2\Projects\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA HARP Database: NA
***FACILITY INFORMATION***
Origin
X (m):0
Y (m):0
Zone:1
No. of Sources:0
No. of Buildings:0
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:1
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProID PolID PolAbbrev
Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ PAREA1 0 0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
120 0 1
Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH22013
Official: True
PolID PolAbbrev InhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL
InhChronicREL OralChronicREL InhChronic8HRREL
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
1244
***AIR DISPERSION MODELING INFORMATION***
Versions used in HARP. All executables were obtained from USEPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling website (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/) AERMOD: 18081
AERMAP: 18081
BPIPPRM: 04274
AERPLOT: 13329
***METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION***
Version:
Surface File:
Profile File:
Surface Station:
Upper Station:
On-Site Station:
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD Input File:
AERMOD Output File:
AERMOD Error File:
Plotfile list
_____________
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
_________
ConstructionCancerRisk.csv
ConstructionCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionGLCList.csv
ConstructionHRAInput.hra
ConstructionNCAcuteRisk.csv
ConstructionNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRisk.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionOutput.txt
ConstructionPathwayRec.csv
ConstructionPolDB.csv
ResidentCancerRisk.csv
ResidentCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentGLCList.csv
ResidentHRAInput.hra
ResidentNCAcuteRisk.csv
ResidentNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentNCChronicRisk.csv
ResidentNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentOutput.txt
ResidentPathwayRec.csv
ResidentPolDB.csv
WorkerCancerRisk.csv
1245
WorkerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerGLCList.csv
WorkerHRAInput.hra
WorkerNCAcuteRisk.csv
WorkerNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkerNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerOutput.txt
WorkerPathwayRec.csv
WorkerPolDB.csv
Spatial averaging files (\sa\)
_______________________
1246
HARP Project Summary Report 12/2/2025 4:13:40 PM
***PROJECT INFORMATION***
HARP Version: 22118
Project Name: 25017 - TCOE ACC HRA
Project Output Directory: C:\HARP2\Projects\25017 - TCOE ACC HRA HARP Database: NA
***FACILITY INFORMATION***
Origin
X (m):0
Y (m):0
Zone:1
No. of Sources:0
No. of Buildings:0
***EMISSION INVENTORY***
No. of Pollutants:1
No. of Background Pollutants:0
Emissions
ScrID StkID ProID PolID PolAbbrev
Multi Annual Ems MaxHr Ems MWAF
(lbs/yr) (lbs/hr)
____________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ PAREA1 0 0 9901 DieselExhPM 1
120 0 1
Background
PolID PolAbbrev Conc (ug/m^3) MWAF
________________________________________________________________ Ground level concentration files (\glc\)
________________________________________
9901MAXHR.txt
9901PER.txt
***POLLUTANT HEALTH INFORMATION***
Health Database: C:\HARP2\Tables\HEALTH17320.mdb
Health Table Version: HEALTH22013
Official: True
PolID PolAbbrev InhCancer OralCancer AcuteREL
InhChronicREL OralChronicREL InhChronic8HRREL
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
9901 DieselExhPM 1.1 5
1247
***AIR DISPERSION MODELING INFORMATION***
Versions used in HARP. All executables were obtained from USEPA's Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling website (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/) AERMOD: 18081
AERMAP: 18081
BPIPPRM: 04274
AERPLOT: 13329
***METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION***
Version:
Surface File:
Profile File:
Surface Station:
Upper Station:
On-Site Station:
***LIST OF AIR DISPERSION FILES***
AERMOD Input File:
AERMOD Output File:
AERMOD Error File:
Plotfile list
_____________
***LIST OF RISK ASSESSMENT FILES***
Health risk analysis files (\hra\)
_________
ConstructionCancerRisk.csv
ConstructionCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionGLCList.csv
ConstructionHRAInput.hra
ConstructionNCAcuteRisk.csv
ConstructionNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRisk.csv
ConstructionNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ConstructionOutput.txt
ConstructionPathwayRec.csv
ConstructionPolDB.csv
ResidentCancerRisk.csv
ResidentCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentGLCList.csv
ResidentHRAInput.hra
ResidentNCAcuteRisk.csv
ResidentNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentNCChronicRisk.csv
ResidentNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
ResidentOutput.txt
ResidentPathwayRec.csv
ResidentPolDB.csv
WorkerCancerRisk.csv
1248
WorkerCancerRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerGLCList.csv
WorkerHRAInput.hra
WorkerNCAcuteRisk.csv
WorkerNCAcuteRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerNCChronicRisk.csv
WorkerNCChronicRiskSumByRec.csv
WorkerOutput.txt
WorkerPathwayRec.csv
WorkerPolDB.csv
Spatial averaging files (\sa\)
_______________________
1249
USGS Visalia 7.5’ topographic quadrangle
37.5-acre project boundary; intensive pedestrian survey Keywords: Negative Findings
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Tulare County Office of Education Administration and
Conference Center Expansion Project, City of Visalia,
Tulare County, California
Consuelo Y. Sauls, M.A., RPA
Prepared By
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Prepared For
4Creeks, Inc.
324 S. Santa Fe St., Suite A
Visalia, CA 93292
October 2025
1250
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
ii
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Taylored Archaeology completed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration (TCOE) and Conference Center Expansion Project (Project) in Visalia, Tulare County near Visalia, California. The Project site covers approximately 37.5-acres within Tulare County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 122-480-004, -008, and 122-470-003. The TCOE proposes to expand and redevelop its existing Administration and Conference Building site and annex approximately 23 acres of the Project site into the City of Visalia. The Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
To meet CEQA standards, Taylored Archaeology completed this cultural resources assessment under contract to 4Creeks, Inc. to identify potential cultural resources within the 37-acre Project site. The investigation consisted of (1) a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), (2) archival research, (3) a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File including the local Native American contact information list; and (4) an archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project site.
The CHRIS records search results identified three prior cultural resources studies (TU-00041, TU01190 and TU-01747), and no cultural resources recorded within the Project area. Only one out of the three prior cultural resources studies, TU-01747, overlapped the Project site. TU-01747 was a cultural resources assessment report that surveyed the 23-acre field parcel (APN 122-470- 003) that was a former walnut orchard with negative findings. The CHRIS results also reported four prior cultural resources studies within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project area, as well as two historic-era resources – the Tulare Irrigation Canal (P-54-005296) and the Mooney Park Bridge (TUL-PRO-007). Both cultural resources are outside the Project boundary and will not be impacted by the Project.
The NAHC’s Sacred Lands File results search of the Project site were negative. Native American outreach and consultation with Tribes are not included in this investigation. It is assumed that government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 will be conducted by Tulare County.
The pedestrian survey resulted in negative findings with no prehistoric or historic-period cultural resources within the Project boundary. The absence of cultural material on the ground surface does not, however, preclude the possibility of Project construction unearthing buried archaeological deposits.
Based on the results of this investigation, Taylored Archaeology concludes the Project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Taylored Archaeology also recommends the following best management practices be implemented during Project construction:
1251
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
iii
• In the event of accidental discovery of unidentified archaeological materials during development or ground disturbing activities within any portion of the Project site, all work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot radius) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance. • If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.
A copy of this report will be submitted to the SSJVIC for inclusion in the CHRIS database. 1252
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..................................................................1
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................1
1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................2
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................2
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................7 2 PROJECT SETTING................................................................................................................8
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................8
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING .............................................................................................9
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................11
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING..................................................................................................12
2.4.1 California History .......................................................................................12
2.4.2 Central California History...........................................................................12
2.4.3 Local History...............................................................................................13 3 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................15
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................15
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................15
3.3 NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE .....................................................................................15
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY...............................................................15 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................17
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH ..................................................................................................17
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH .............................................................................................18
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH .............................................................................19
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS.....................................................................19 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................24 6 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................26
APPENDICES
A Personnel Qualifications
B Records Search Results
C Sacred Lands File Search Results
1253
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
v
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California............................................................ 4 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle.......................... 5 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary. ...................................................................... 6 Figure 4-1 Survey coverage of Project site. ........................................................................... 21 Figure 4-2 Basin in northern central portion of Project site, facing northwest. ................... 22 Figure 4-3 Basin and dirt parking lot in central portion of Project site, facing south. .......... 22 Figure 4-4 Eastern portion of Project site, facing north. ....................................................... 23 Figure 4-5 Commercial aera of Project site, facing northwest. ............................................. 23 TABLES
Table 4-1 Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Project Area .............................. 17 Table 4-2 Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5-mile of the Project Area............ 18 Table 4-3 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area....................................................................................................................... 18 1254
1255
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
1 1
INTRODUCTION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I cultural resources assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project (Project) in Visalia, Tulare County near Visalia, California. As part of development approval process, the Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE) as lead agency must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 [g] mandate that the government agencies consider the impacts of a project on the environment, including cultural resources. A portion of the Project site is in unincorporated Tulare County and will be annexed into the City of Visalia. The City of Visalia will be the CEQA lead agency during the annexation and entitlements process.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The TCOE proposes expanding and redeveloping its existing Administration and Conference Building site. The Project site currently includes an existing 2.5-acre parcel. TCOE has acquired an adjacent 14.4 acres, which will merge with the existing site to form a single parcel for development. The expansion will provide approximately 108,000 square feet of office and conference room space, three classrooms totaling 6,200 square feet, and approximately 35,000 square feet of warehouse space. A stormwater basin will be constructed along the southern boundary of the property for on-site drainage. Parking facilities surrounding the development will provide 388 parking stalls, including 17 accessible spaces. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from South Mooney Boulevard to the west and Avenue 264 to the south. The primary use of this facility will be to host professional development trainings and workshops for District employees.
The Project area covers approximately 37.5-acres within Tulare County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 122-480-004, -008, and 122-470-003. The Project area is on the south side of the City of Visalia, California (Figure 1-1). The Project area is within Section 18 of Township 19 South, Range 25 East, Mount Diablo Meridian of the Visalia, California 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle (Figure 1-2).
1.2 REGULATORY SETTING
In this report “cultural resources” are defined as prehistoric or historical archaeological sites as well as historical objects, buildings, or structures. In accordance with 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §60.4, “historical” in this report applies to cultural resources which are at least 50 years old. The significance or importance of a cultural resource is dependent upon whether the resource qualifies for inclusion at the local or state level in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or at the federal level in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Cultural resources that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR are called 1256
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
2 “historical resources” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5[a]). Under this statue the determination of eligibility is partially based on the consideration of the criteria of significance as defined in 14 CCR 15064.5(a)(3). Cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are deemed “historic properties”.
1.2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR. Historical resources may include, but are not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically or archaeologically significant” (PRC §5020.1[j]). In addition, a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with the state guidelines are also considered historic resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1.
CEQA details appropriate measures for the evaluation and protection of cultural resources in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA guidelines §15064.5 (a)(3), criteria for listing on the CRHR includes the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to CEQA guidelines §21074 (a)(1), criteria for tribal cultural resources includes the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
Protection of cultural resources within California is additionally regulated by PRC §5097.5, which prohibits destruction, defacing, or removal of any historic or prehistoric cultural features on land under the jurisdiction of State or local authorities.
1.3 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Archaeologist Consuelo Y. Sauls (M.A.), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA 41591505), managed the assessment and compiled this report for the Project. Ms. Sauls also conducted the 1257
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
3 archival research and literature review, prepared all maps and report graphics, requested a Sacred Lands File search, and performed the archaeological pedestrian field survey of the Project site. Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Qualifications in Archaeology. Statement of Qualifications for key personnel is provided in Appendix A. 1258
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
4 Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in Tulare County, California. 1259
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
5 Figure 1-2 Project location on the USGS Visalia, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle. 1260
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
6 Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the Project boundary.
1261
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report documents the results of a cultural resource assessment of the proposed Project area.
In order to comply with California regulations for CEQA, the following specific tasks were completed: (1) requesting a records search from the Southern San Joaquin Information Center (SSJVIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), at California State University, Bakersfield; (2) a review of site archives (3) requesting a Sacred Lands File Search and a list of interested parties from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (4) conducting an archaeological pedestrian survey, and (5) preparing this technical report.
Taylored Archaeology prepared this report following the California Office of Historic Preservation standards in the 1990 Archaeological Resources Management Report Recommended Contents and Format. Chapter 1 describes the introduction of the Project and its location and identifies the key personnel involved in this report. Chapter 2 summarizes the Project setting, including the natural, prehistoric ethnography, and historic background for the Project site and surrounding area. Chapters 3 details the methods used for cultural records searches, local Native American outreach, and archaeological pedestrian survey. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the cultural resource investigation. Chapter 5 discusses the Project findings and offers management recommendations. Chapter 6 is a bibliography of references cited within this report. The report also contains the following appendices: qualifications of key personnel (Appendix A), the CHRIS records search results (Appendix B), and Sacred Lands File search results (Appendix C). 1262
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
8 2
PROJECT SETTING
2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
The Project area lies in the Central Valley of California, which is approximately 450 miles from north to south, and ranges in width east to west from 40 to 60 miles (Prothero 2017). The Central Valley is divided into two subunits, the Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the south, which are each named after the primary rivers within each valley (Madden 2020).
The Project is located approximately 305 feet above sea level on the open flat plains of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. Climate within the San Joaquin valley is classified as a ‘hot Mediterranean climate’, with hot and dry summers, and cool damp winters characterized by periods of dense fog known as ‘tule fog’ (Prothero 2017).
The San Joaquin Valley is a comprised of a structural trough created approximately 65 million years ago and is filled with nearly six miles of sediment (Bull 1964). The San Joaquin Valley ranges from Stockton and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta in the north to Wheeler Ridge to the south, ranging nearly 60 miles wide at its widest (Zack 2017). It is split by late Pleistocene alluvial fans between the San Joaquin River hydrologic area in the north and the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin in the south (Rosenthal et al 2007). The Project site is located within the latter of the two hydrologic units. The Kaweah, Tule, Kern, and Kings rivers flowed into large inland lakes with no outflow except in high flood events, in which the lakes would flow through the Fresno Slough into the San Joaquin River. The largest of these inland lakes was Tulare Lake, which occupied a vast area of Tulare and Kings Counties and was the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi.
These four rivers in the Tulare Lake Drainage Basin accounted for more than 95 percent of water discharged into Tulare Lake, with the remaining five percent sourced from small drainages originating in the Coast Ranges to the west (Adams et al. 2015).
The Project is in central western Tulare County on the valley floor of the San Joaquin Valley within the greater Kaweah River Delta alluvial fan. Specifically, the Project is located on a former bank of Mill Creek, which is a distributary of the Kaweah River (Hammond 1885). Distributaries form when debris-laden river waters meet abrupt changes in channel and slope confinement, resulting in unstable channel networks that change with time (Wagner et al. 2013).
Before the appearance of agriculture in the nineteenth century, the general Project location would have been comprised of prairie grasslands with scattered oak tree savannas near the foothills, and riparian forest along the various streams and drainages (Preston 1981).
Riparian environments would also have been present along various waterways, including drainages and marshes. Riparian forest vegetation would have been comprised of multiple layers of dense undergrowth. The upper canopy species would have consisted of Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), willow (Salix spp.), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremonti) (Katibah 1984). Intermediate layers were likely dominated by Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), willow (Salix spp.), and California box elder (Acernegundo subsp. californicum), while riparian forest undergrowth would have included California wild grape (Vitis 1263
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
californica), poison oak (Rhus diversiloba), California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California wild rose (Rosa californica), and blackberry (Rubus spp.) Drier portions of the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley would have been dominated by saltbrush (Atriplex spp.) desert. (Katibah 1984).
The region around the Project site and the Saint John’s River was largely dominated by annual grasslands in drier upland habitat, and riparian forest, rivers and marshland near waterways.
Historically, these habitats provided a lush environment for a variety of animals, including rodents, insects, reptiles, birds and other waterfowl, California grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus), tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), American black bear (Ursus americanus), and mountain lion (Puma concolor) (Preston 1981). Native trees and plants observed in the Project vicinity include various blue, live, and white oaks (Quercus spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.), and willow (Salix spp.). The introduction of agriculture to the region resulted in large animals being forced out of their habitat. Common land mammals now include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), and rabbits (Leporidae spp.).
Rivers and lakes throughout the valley provide habitat for freshwater fish, including rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus) (Preston 1981). Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were also found throughout the valley, including as far south as the San Joaquin River, and occasionally the Kings River, though it is estimated that chinook salmon have lost as much as 72 percent of their original habitat throughout the Central Valley (Yoshiyama et al. 2001).
Soils in the Project area as mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) consist of two series - Yettem and Tagus series. Most of the Project area is 79.6 percent mapped in Yettem sandy loam in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources. Yettem soils are distributed on 0 to 5 percent grade alluvial fans and stream terraces (NRCS 2025). The remaining 20.4 percent of the Project area is mapped as Tagus loam, which consists of 0 to 2 percent grade very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock sources and are often found on alluvial fan remnants (NRCS 2025).
2.2 PREHISTORIC SETTING
Research into San Joaquin Valley prehistory began in the early 1900s with several archaeological investigations (Rosenthal et al. 2007). The Southern San Joaquin Valley is of one of the least understood areas within California due to a lack of well-grounded chronologies for large segments of the valley (Rosenthal et al. 2007). This is largely due to the valley floor being filled with thick alluvial deposits, and from human activity largely disturbing much of the valley floor due to a century and a half of agricultural use (Dillon 2002; Siefken 1999). Mound sites may have occurred as frequently as one every two or three miles along major waterways but studying such mounded occupations sites is difficult as most surface sites have been destroyed (Schenck and Dawson 1929). Much of the early to middle Holocene archaeological sites may be buried as deep as 10 meters due to millennia of erosion and alluvial deposits from the western Sierras (Moratto 1984).
1264
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
10 Mass agricultural development has heavily disturbed and changed the landscape of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, from the draining of marshes and the vanishing of the extensive Tulare Lake, known as “Pa’ashi” meaning “Big Water” in the Yokut language, to grading nearly the entire valley for agricultural operations (Garone 2011). These activities have impacted or scattered much of the shallow surface deposits and mounds throughout the valley (Rosenthal et al 2007). Some researchers have suggested that potentially as much as 90 percent of all Central California archaeological sites have been destroyed from these activities (Riddell 2002).
The cultural traits and chronologies which are summarized below are largely based upon information discussed in multiple sources, including Fredrickson (1973, 1974), Garfinkel (2015), McGuire and Garfinkel (1980), Moratto (1984), and Rosenthal et al. (2007). The most recent comprehensive approach to compiling a chronology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley prehistory is by Garfinkel in 2015, which builds off Rosenthal’s 2007 previous work. Both Garfinkel’s and Rosenthal’s chronologies are calculated in years B.C. In the interest of maintaining cohesiveness with modern anthropological research, the dates of these chronologies have been adapted into years before present (B.P.).
The Paleo-Indian Period (13,500-10,600 cal B.P.) was largely represented by ephemeral lake sites which were characterized by atlatl and spear projectile points. Around 14,000 years ago, California was largely a cooler and wetter place, but with the retreat of continental Pleistocene glaciers, California largely experienced a warming and drying period. Lakes filled with glacial meltwater were located in the valley floor and used by populations of now extinct large game animals. A few prehistoric sites were discovered near the southwestern shore of Tulare Lake (Garfinkel 2015). Foragers appear to have operated in small groups which migrated on a regular basis.
During the Lower Archaic Period (10,500-7450 cal B.P.), climate change created a largely different environment which led to the creation of larger alluvial fans and flood plains. Most of the archaeological records of the prior period wound up being buried by geological processes. During this time, cultural patterns appear to have emerged between the foothill and valley populations of the local people. The foothill sites were often categorized by dense flaked and ground stone assemblages, while the valley sites were instead characterized by a predominance of crescents and stemmed projectile points. Occupation within the area is represented mostly by isolated discoveries and along the former shoreline of Tulare Lake. Archaeological finds are typically characterized by chipped stone crescents, stemmed points, and other distinctive flakes stone artifacts (Rosenthal et al. 2007). Variations in consumption patterns emerged as well, with the valley sites more marked by consumption of waterfowl, mussels, and freshwater fish, while the foothills sites saw an increase in nuts, seeds, and a more narrowly focused diet than the valley sites.
The Middle Archaic (7450-2500 cal B.P.) saw an increase in semi-permanent villages along river and creek settings, with more permanent sites located along lakes with a more stable supply of water and wildlife. Due to the warmer and drier weather of this period, many lakes within the valley dramatically reduced in size, while some vanished completely (Garone 2011). Cultural 1265
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
patterns during this time saw an increase in stone tools, while a growth in shell beads, ornaments, and obsidian evidence an extensive and ever-growing long-distance trade network. Little is known of cultural patterns in the valley during the Upper Archaic (2500-850 B.P.), but large village structures appeared to be more common around local rivers. An overall reduction of projectile point size suggests changing bow and arrow technologies. Finally, the Emergent Period (850 cal B.P. - Historic Era) was generally marked by an ever-increasing specialization in tools, and the bow and arrow generally replaced the dominance of the dart and atlatl. Cultural traditions ancestral to those recorded during ethnographic research in the early 1900s are identifiable.
2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY
The Project boundary is in the Southern Valley Yokuts ethnographic territory of the San Joaquin Valley. The Yokuts were generally divided into three major groups, the Northern Valley Yokuts, the Southern Valley Yokuts, and the Foothill Yokuts. The Yokuts are a sub-group of the Penutian language that covers much of coastal and central California and Oregon (Callaghan 1958). The Yokuts language contained multiple dialects spoken throughout the region, though many of them were mutually understandable (Merriam 1904).
The Yokuts have been extensively researched and recorded by ethnographers, including Powers (1877), Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926, 1929), Gayton (1930, 1945), Driver (1937), Harrington (1957), Latta (1977), and Wallace (1978). Much of the research from these ethnographers focuses on the central Yokuts tribes due to the northernmost tribes being impacted by Euro-Americans during the California Gold Rush of the mid 1800s, and by the southernmost tribes often being removed and relocated by the Spanish to various Bay Area or coastal missions. The central Yokuts tribes, and especially the western Sierra Nevada foothill tribes, were the most intact at the time of ethnographic study.
The most detailed ethnographic information gathered regarding Native American group territories in Central California is located within maps prepared by Kroeber. The information presented in Kroeber’s map of Southern and Central Yokuts shows the Project area within the Telamni Yokuts territory (1925: Plate 47). The main ethnographic village for this area was Waitatahulul, which was approximately 3 miles to the northwest of the Project boundary along Packwood Creek (Kroeber 1925). Primary Yokuts villages were typically located along lakeshores and major stream courses, with scattered secondary or temporary camps and settlements located near gathering areas in the foothills. Yokuts were organized into local tribes, with one or more linked villages and smaller settlements within a territory (Kroeber 1925).
Each local tribe was a land-owning group that was organized around a central village and shared common territory and ancestry. Most local tribe populations ranged from 150 to 500 people (Kroeber 1925). These local tribes were often led by a chief, who was often advised by a variety of assistants including the winatum, who served as a messenger and assistant chief (Gayton 1930). Early studies by Kroeber (1925), Gifford and Schenck (1926), and Gayton (1930) concluded that social and political authority within local tribes was derived from male lineage and patriarchy. However, more recent reexaminations (Dick-Bissonnette 1998) argue that this 1266
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
12 assumption of patriarchal organization was based on male bias by early 20th century researchers, and instead Yokuts sociopolitical authority was matriarchal in nature and centered around matrilineal use-rights and women’s work groups.
Prior to Euro-American contact, there was abundance of natural resources within the greater Tulare Lake area. Due to these resources, Yokuts maintained some of the largest populations in North America west of the continental divide (Cook 1955a).
2.4 HISTORIC SETTING
2.4.1 California History
European contact in modern-day California first occurred in 1542 with the arrival of a Spanish expedition lead by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo into San Diego Bay (Engstrand 1997). Expeditions along the California coast continued throughout the sixteenth century and primarily focused on finding favorable harbors for further expansion and trade across the Pacific. However, rocky shorelines, unfavorable currents, and wind conditions made traveling north from New Spain to the upper California coast a difficult and time-consuming journey (Eifler 2017). The topography of California, with high mountains, large deserts, and few natural harbors lead to European expansion into California only starting in the 1760s. As British and Russian expansion through fur trading encroached on California from the north, Spain established a system of presidios, pueblos, and missions along the California coast to defend its claim, starting with Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 (Engstrand 1997).
2.4.2 Central California History
The San Joaquin Valley did not experience contact with Europeans until the late 1700s (Starr 2007). Life at the California missions was hard and brutal for Native Americans, with many dying of disease, poor conditions, and many fleeing to areas not under direct Spanish control (Jackson and Castillo 1995). The earliest exploration of the San Joaquin Valley by Europeans was likely by the Spaniards when in the fall of 1772 a group known as the Catalonian Volunteers entered the valley through Tejon Pass in search of deserters from the Southern California Missions (Zack 2017). However, the group only made it as far north as Buena Vista Lake in modern day Kern County before turning around due to the extensive swamps. Additional excursions to the valley were for exploration such as those led by Lieutenant Bariel Moraga in 1806, but also to find sites for suitable mission sites and to track down Native Americans fleeing the coastal missions (Cook 1958).
Subsequent expeditions were also sent to pursue outlaws from the coast who would often flee to the valley for safety. One of the subsequent explorations was an expedition in 1814 to 1815 with Sargent Juan Ortega and Father Juan Cabot, who left the Mission San Miguel with a company of approximately 30 Spanish soldiers and explored the San Joaquin Valley (Smith 2004). This expedition passed through the Kaweah Delta and modern-day Visalia and made a recommendation to establish a mission near modern-day Visalia. However, with European 1267
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
contact also came European disease. Malaria and other new diseases were brought by Europeans, and in 1833 an epidemic of unknown origin traveled throughout the Central Valley.
Some estimates place the Native American mortality of the epidemic as high as 75 percent (Cook 1955b). Combined with the rapid expansion of Americans into California in 1848 during the Gold Rush, Native American populations within the valley never fully recovered (Eifler 2017).
Initial settlement within the valley by Europeans in the 1830s was largely either by trappers like Jedediah Smith or horse thieves like Pegleg Smith (Clough and Secrest 1984). In fact, horse and other livestock theft was so rampant that ranching operations on the Rancho Laguna de Tache by the Kings River and Rancho del San Joaquin Rancho along the San Joaquin River could not be properly established (Cook 1962). With the end of the Mexican American War and the beginning of the gold rush in 1848, the San Joaquin Valley became more populated with ranchers and prospectors. Most prospectors traveled by sea to San Francisco and used rivers ranging from the Sacramento River to the San Joaquin River to access the California interior (Eifler 2017). Most areas south of the San Joaquin River were less settled simply because those rivers did not connect to the San Francisco Bay area except in wet flood years. By 1850, California became a state and Tulare County was established in 1853.
2.4.3 Local History
The City of Visalia is one of the oldest cities within the Southern San Joaquin Valley and was founded in 1852. By the late 1850s the town of Visalia was a major station along the Butterfield Overland Mail stage route as it traveled north from Los Angeles to Stockton (Helmich 2008).
During the first few decades, Visalia was a supply center for nearby gold rushes, served as the regional population center of Tulare County, and had an agricultural economy based on livestock and some agriculture (Dyett and Bhatia 2014). During the 1850s and 1860s roughly made earthen ditches and dams diverted stream water for irrigation, with the earliest ditches in the San Joaquin Valley being constructed in Visalia between 1852 to 1853 (Caltrans 2000). The Southern Pacific Railroad was extended from Fresno into Tulare County in the early 1870s but bypassed the City of Visalia as the city was located six miles to the east of the rail line (Small 1926).
The construction of the rail line also brought an increase in agriculture and farms, which clashed with existing ranching operations in the local area. Escalating conflicts and livestock disputes between ranchers and farmers lead to the “No Fence Law” in 1874, which forced ranchers to pay for crop and property damage caused by their cattle (Ludeke 1980). With the passage of this law and the expansion of irrigation systems, predominant land use in the 1870s switched from grazing to farming (Mitchell 1974). This led to the beginning of the vast change of the San Joaquin Valley from native vegetation and grasslands to irrigated crops (Varner and Stuart 1975).
Water rights within California originally arose from the ‘first come first serve’ policy of the Gold Rush era. Diverting surface water to farms became big business but was a convoluted mess of customs, traditions, and conflicting claims (Zack 2017). Fed up with the situation, small farmers gathered behind Modesto lawyer C.C. Wright, who was elected to the California legislature in 1887 on the platform of taking water rights from large estates and putting it in the power of 1268
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
14 community-controlled irrigation districts (Hundley 1992). To solve this mess, the Wright Act of 1887 was passed that allowed residents to petition a local county board of supervisors to create irrigation districts that had the power to issues bonds, and tax land within the district boundaries to pay for the creation and maintenance of canals and ditches for irrigation purposes. 1269
3 METHODS
3.1 RECORDS SEARCH
Taylored Archaeology requested a cultural resource records search from the SSJVIC of the CHRIS at California State University in Bakersfield, California on September 15, 2025. The purpose of this request was to identify and review prior cultural resource studies and previously recorded cultural resources on or near the Project boundary. The records search included prior cultural resources investigation reports conducted, previously recorded resources within the Project boundary and the 0.5-mile radius around the Project boundary (Appendix B). Also included in research were cultural resource records (DPR forms) as well as the Historic Properties Directory of the Office of Historic Preservation list, General Land Office Maps, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Inventory of Historic Resources list.
3.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Archival research was conducted to investigate the historical background for any potential historic structures, buildings and historical deposits that may exist and land use within the Project boundary. Historical maps, historical aerial photographs, historical US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, Google Earth aerial photographs, Google Street View photos, Map Aerial Locator Tool (MALT) at the Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, books, articles and other records were used to better understand the prehistory and history of the Project area. The results of this research are presented in Chapter 4.
3.3 NAHC SACRED LANDS FILE
Taylored Archaeology sent a request to the NAHC as part of this cultural resources investigation for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search on September 15, 2025. The objective of the SLF search was to identify tribal cultural resources present in or near the Project boundary.
Native American outreach and consultation with Tribes are not included in this scope of work. It is assumed that government-to-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 will be conducted by the CEQA lead agency. The SLF results are in Chapter 4.
3.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
On October 4, 2025, Archaeologist Consuelo Sauls conducted an archaeological pedestrian survey of the 57.4-acre Project site. The survey began in the southeast corner of the Project boundary, using transects spaced 5 meters apart oriented east to west. The archaeologist carefully inspected all exposed ground surface and rodent burrow back-dirt piles and other areas of bare earth for soil discoloration that could indicate the presence of artifacts (e.g., lithics and ceramic sherds), soil depressions, and features indicating the former presence of buildings or structures (e.g., postholes and foundations). The Project boundary was checked for both Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
1270
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
16 prehistoric deposits and historic-age features, structures, and artifacts more than 50 years old that may be present on the ground surface. A plan map of the Project site was used to see land usage, structures and map out transects. Field survey observations were documented in the field and survey coordinates were recorded on a Gaia Global Positioning System application.
Photographs were taken of the Project site using an iPhone 11 Pro digital camera. 1271
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
4 RESULTS
4.1 RECORDS SEARCH
The SSJVIC provided the records search results in a letter dated September 30, 2025 (Appendix B). According to the search results, three prior cultural resource studies were conducted within the Project area (Table 4-1). Further review of these studies showed that only one overlaps the Project site. TU-01747 is an archaeological field survey for a proposed cellular tower. TU-00041 TU-01190 is a historical account of the Mariposa War of 1850-1851 and is not pertinent to this Project area. In addition, four previous cultural resources studies were within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary as depicted in Table 4-2. None of these studies intersected the Project boundary.
The SSJVIC reported there were no cultural resources previously documented within the Project area. Two cultural resources, both historic era, were recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project boundary (Table 4-3). None of these previously recorded resources intercept the Project boundary. P-54-005296 is the historic era Tulare Irrigation Canal, located on the south side of Avenue 264. TUL-PRO-007 is a 1915 historic era bridge in Mooney Grove Park approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project site.
Table 4-1
Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00041 William Self 1995 Class I Overview, Santa Fe
Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
Proposed Concord to Colton
Pipeline Project
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01190 Annie R. Mitchell 1957 Jim Savage and the Tulareño Indians
Book
TU-01747 Phil Fulton 2015 Cultural Resource Assessment
Class III Inventory, Verizon
Wireless Services, South
Mooney Facility, City of Visalia,
County of Tulare, California
Archaeological Field
Survey
1272
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
18 Table 4-2
Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5-mile of the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Date Report Title Study
TU-00534 Ann S. Peak, Robert
Gerry, Peter D. Robert
and Francis A. Riddell
1975 Archaeological Assessment of
Cultural Resources-Mid-Valley
Canal Project in Fresno, Tulare,
Merced, Madera, and Kings
Counties, California.
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-00620 Brian Wickstrom 1996 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Bus Bay
Construction Proposition On
the East Side of Route 63 at
Mooney's Grove Park In Visalia
Archaeological Field
Survey
TU-01085 Douglas W. Dodd 1999 Historical Architectural Survey Report/Historic Resource
Evaluation Report for Roadbed
Rehabilitation and Intersection
Upgrades on State Route 63
Between Tulare and Visalia,
Tulare County
Architectural/Historical
Evaluation
TU-01498 Laura Leach-Palm, Paul
Brandy, Jay King, Pat
Mikkelsen, Libby Seil,
Lindsay Hartman, Jill
Bradeen
2010 Cultural Resources Inventory of
Caltrans District 6 Rural
Conventional Highways in
Fresno, Western Kern, Kings,
Madera, and Tulare Counties.
Archaeological,
Architectural/Historical
Field Survey
Table 4-3
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile radius of the Project Area Resource Number Age
Association Resource Type Year Recorded
Distance from
Project Boundary
P-54-005296 Historic Structure; Tulare Irrigation
Canal
2022
(Karana
HattersleyDrayton)
60 feet south
TUL-PRO-007/ OTIS ID
507107
Historic Structure; The Mooney Park
Bridge
1986
(Caltrans)
0.25 miles north
4.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
Historic map coverage of the Project site begins with a 1927 USGS topographic map, which depicts the site as open field bound by an unnamed road to the west in the same alignment as present-day Highway 63, and a “Liberty Road” to the south in the same alignment as Avenue 264 1273
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
(USGS 1927). No buildings or structures are depicted on the Project site in 1927. By 1949 the southern half of the Project site is shown as an orchard with three buildings on the Project site, one in the southeast corner along Avenue 264, one in the center northern portion of the site, and one along the western boundary of the site along Highway 63. A small road is also depicted along the southwestern boundary of the Project site from Highway 63 to the central building (USGS 1947). By 1969, the northwestern portion of the project site is labeled as “Drive-in Theater” in the area presently occupied by the TCOE administration building and parking lot (USGS 1969). Otherwise the site is similar to the 1949 USGS topographic site. USGS Topographic maps after 1969 for the Project site do not depict any details other than Highway 63 to the west and Avenue 264 to the south.
Available historic aerial photograph coverage of the Project site began in 1946 with historic aerial photographs by the United State Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA), which depicts the Project site in similar configuration to the 1947 USGS topographic map (USAAA 1946). The next available historic aerial photograph dates to 1956, which shows the northwest corner of the Project site occupied by a drive-in movie theater in a similar configuration to the one depicted in the 1969 topographic map (NETROnline 2025). The remainder of the Project site is comprised of an agricultural field in the northern half and an orchard with a rural residence in the southern half. The rural residence appears to have been removed sometime between 1984 and 1994, and the movie theater appears to have been demolished sometime between 2005 to 2009 (Google Earth 2025). The TCOE Administration building appears to have been constructed in 2015 and the orchard in the eastern portion of the Project site in early 2025 (Google Earth 2025).
4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
The NAHC responded on June 17, 2025 (Appendix C). The search results of the SLF were negative for the presence of tribal cultural resources within the Project area. The NAHC provided a contact list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area (Appendix C).
4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
The Project site consisted of a fully developed commercial area with a parking lot, two small basins, open field, and a recently removed orchard at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 122-470-003, 122-480-004 and 122-480-008 (Figure 4-1). The fenced basin areas in 122-480-008 and the northeast portion of 122-480-004 were not accessible (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Most of the development area in APN 122-480-004 is landscaped with ornamental bushes and paved parking lots. In the east portion of the parcel was mostly dirt and appeared to be used as a parking lot.
The natural topography of the Project site has been altered by historical and modern agricultural practices and commercial development and much of the land on the Project site has been graded, plowed, planted and/or harvested, which has caused additional disturbance to the soil. 1274
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
20 The ground surface visibility within the Project boundary was mostly excellent (100 percent) in the open field and the dirt lot behind the parking lot (Figure 4-4). Ground visibility in the developed commercial area was generally the poorest (0-30 percent) where most of the ground was covered in asphalt (Figure 4-5). The soil in the Project boundary consisted of alluvial sandy loam and was grayish brown and appeared highly disturbed by historical and modern land-use practices, including infrastructural development. Ground disturbances, such as burrows and soil piles, were visually inspected.
No cultural resources were encountered within the Project boundary. While past agricultural and development activities may have potentially destroyed or obscured ground surface evidence of archaeological resources within the Project site, intact archaeological resources may potentially exist below the ground surface.
1275
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
Figure 4-1 Survey coverage of Project site.
1276
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
22 Figure 4-2 Basin in northern central portion of Project site, facing northwest.
Figure 4-3 Basin and dirt parking lot in central portion of Project site, facing south. 1277
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
Figure 4-4 Eastern portion of Project site, facing north.
Figure 4-5 Commercial aera of Project site, facing northwest. 1278
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
24 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Taylored Archaeology performed a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project. The Project proposes to expand and redevelop its existing Administration and Conference Building site. The eastern portion of the Project site will also be annexed into the City of Visalia. This assessment consisted of a records search from the SSJVIC, archival research to gather background information on the site, Sacred Lands File search results, and a pedestrian survey. Furthermore, an examination of historic topographic maps and aerial images indicates that the Project site has largely been used for agricultural purposes.
The CHRIS records search results of the Project site and a 0.5-mile radius was conducted through the SSJVIC at CSU Bakersfield, California. The results determined that three previous cultural studies have been conducted within the Project area. Only one of them overlap the Project boundary. Four prior cultural resources studies were conducted within a 0.5-mile radius. The CHRIS records search did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the Project boundary and two cultural resources were recorded within a 0.5-mile radius.
The NAHC search of the SLF was negative for tribal cultural resources. Native American outreach and consultation with Tribes are not included in this investigation. It is assumed that governmentto-government consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 will be conducted by Tulare County.
An intensive pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources on the ground surface within the Project boundary. The absence of cultural material on the ground surface does not, however, preclude the possibility of Project construction unearthing buried archaeological deposits. The proposed work will not impact the cultural resources within the Project area.
Based on the results of this investigation, Taylored Archaeology recommends the following best management practices:
• In the event that previously unidentified archaeological materials are encountered during development or ground-moving activities in the Project boundary, all work should be halted in the immediate vicinity (100 feet) until a qualified archaeologist can identify the discovery and assess its significance.
• If human remains are uncovered during construction, the Tulare County Coroner is to be notified to investigate the remains and arrange proper treatment and disposition. If the remains are identified on the basis of archaeological context, age, cultural associations, or biological traits to be those of a Native American, California Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and PRC 5097.98 require that the coroner notify the NAHC within 24 hours of discovery. The NAHC will then identify the Most Likely Descendent who will be afforded 1279
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment and disposition of the remains.
1280
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
26 6
REFERENCES
Adams, Kenneth D., Robert M. Negrini, Edward R. Cook, and Seshadri Rajagopal. 2015 Annually resolved late Holocene paleohydrology of the southern Sierra Nevada and Tulare Lake, California. Water Resources Research 51:9708-9724.
Bull, William B.
1964 Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-E. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Callaghan, Catherine A.
1958 California Penutian: History and Bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics. 24(3):189-194.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2000 Water Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures. Sacramento, California.
Clough, Charles W. and William B. Secrest, Jr.
1984 Fresno County The Pioneer Years: From the Beginnings to 1900. Panorama West Publishing, Fresno, California.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955a The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Anthropological Records 16:31–80. University of California, Berkeley.
1955b The Epidemic of 1830-1833 In California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43(3):303-326. University of California, Berkeley.
1958 The Project Gutenberg eBook, Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California Central Valley, 1800-1820
1962 Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. Anthropological Records 20(5):151-212.
Dillon, Brian D.
2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga, edited by William J. 1281
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 110–128. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 60. Berkeley.
Dick-Bissonnette, Linda E.
1998 Gender and Authority among the Yokoch, Mono, and Miwok of Central California.
Journal of Anthropological Research 54(1):49-72.
Driver, Harold E.
1937 Cultural Elements Distribution: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records 1(2):53–154.
Dyett and Bhatia
2014 Visalia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. August.
Eifler, Mark A.
2017 The California Gold Rush: The Stampede that Changed the World. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group Press, Las Vegas.
Engstrand, Iris H.W.
1997 Seekers of the "Northern Mystery": European Exploration of California and the Pacific.
California History, 76(2/3):78–110.
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-54.
Garfinkel, Alan P.
2015 Archaeological Background and Cultural Sequence for The San Joaquin, Central California. Electronic document,
https://www.academia.edu/14721089/ArchaeologicalBackgroundfor theSanJoaquinValleyCentralCalifornia, accessed August 24, 2024. Academia.edu Garone, Philip
2011 The Fall and Rise of the Wetlands of California’s Great Central Valley. University of the Press, Berkeley.
Gayton, Anna H.
1930 Yokuts-Mono Chiefs and Shamans. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(8):361–420.
1282
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
28 1945 Yokuts and Western Mono Social Organization. American Anthropologist 47(3):409–426.
Gifford, E.W., and W. Egbert Schenck
1926 Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley, California. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 23(1).
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4).
Google Earth Pro.
2025 Google Earth Software, Google, Inc.
Hammond, William.
1885 Fresno to Porterville. Detail Irrigation Map. California State Engineering Department. https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~207677~3003421:
Composite--Fresno-to-Porterville Accessed August 25, 2024.
Harrington, Mark R.
1957 A Pinto Site at Little Lake, California. No. 17. Southwest Museum.
Helmich, Mary A.
2008 Stage Road Hazards. California State Parks, Interpretation & Education Division. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25445. Accessed August 25, 2024.
Hundley, Norris Jr.
1992 The Great Thirst: Californians and Water, 1770s – 1900s. University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Jackson, Robert H. and Edward Castillo
1995 Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Colonization: The Impacts of the Mission System on California Indians. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Katibah, Edwin F.
1984 A Brief History of Riparian Forests in the Central Valley of California. In California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. Edited by Richard E. Warner and Katheleen M. Hendrix. University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington, D.C.
1283
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
Latta, Frank F.
1977 Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, California.
Ludeke, John.
1980 The No Fence Law of 1874: Victor for San Joaquin Valley Farmers. California History 2(59):98-115. University of California Press, Berkley, California.
Madden, Derek.
2020 The Naturalist’s Illustrated Guide to the Sierra Foothills and Central Valley. Heyday Publishing, Berkley, California.
McGuire, Kelly R. and Alan P. Garfinkel.
1980 Archaeological Investigations in the Southern Sierra Nevada: The Bear Mountain Segment of the Pacific Crest Trail. Cultural Resources Publications, Archaeology, unnumbered: xii – 304.
Merriam, Hart C.
1904 Distribution of Indian Tribes in the Southern Sierra and Adjacent Parts of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Science 19(494):912-917.
Mitchell, Annie R.
1974 A Modern History of Tulare County. Limited Edition of Visalia, Incorporated. Visalia, California.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
2025 Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed October 2, 2025.
NETROnline
202 Historical Aerial Online by NetrOnline. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Accessed October 10, 2025.
Powers, Stephen
1877 Tribes of California. Washington Press, Washington, D.C.
Preston, William L.
1981 Vanishing Landscapes: Land and Life in the Tulare Lake Basin. Olympic Marketing Corp, Hopkins.
Prothero, Donald R.
2017 California’s Amazing Geology. Taylor and Francis Group. 1284
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
30 Riddell, Francis A.
2002 The Status of San Joaquin Valley Archaeological. In Essays in California Archaeology:
A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell, pp. 55-61. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Contribution Number 60. Berkeley, California.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton 2007 The Central Valley: A View from the Catbirds’s Seat. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Cultural, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar.
AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Schenck, W.E., and E.J. Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25:289-413. University of California, Bakersfield, California.
Siefken, Nelson.
1999 Archaeology of the Redfeldt Mound (CA-KIN-66), Tulare Basin, California. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Bakersfield.
Small, Kathleen Edwards.
1926 Early History of Tulare County California. 2001 reprint edition, Bear State Books, Exeter, California.
Smith, Wallace.
2004 Garden of the Sun: A History of the San Joaquin Valley: 1772-1939. 2 nd ed., revised by
William B. Secrest, Jr. Linden Publishing, Fresno, California.
Starr, Kevin.
2007 California: A History. Random House Publishing Group, New York, New York.
U.S. Agricultural Adjustment Administration (USAAA)
1946 Fresno County, California Aerial Survey No. 1946 F-K 11-20, http://digitized.library.fresnostate.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/aerial/id/16146, accessed through Map and Aerial Locator Tool (MALT), Henry Madden Library, California State University, Fresno, October 10, 2025.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1927 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
1949 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map. 7.5-minute series. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
1285
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
1949 Visalia, California, Quadrangle Map, photorevised 1969. 7.5-minute series. U.S.
Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Varner, Dudley M. and David R. Stuart.
1975 Survey of Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Central Yokohl Valley, Tulare County, California. Sacramento: Report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Wagner, David L., Jerome V. De Graff, and Jeremy T. Lancaster. 2013 Debris flows in the southern and eastern Sierra Nevada region, California. In Geologic Excursions from Fresno, California, and the Central Valley: A Tour of California’s Iconic Geology. Keith Daniel Putrika, pp. 99-128. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Wallace, William J.
1978 Southern Valley Yokuts. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Ed.
Robert F. Heizer, pp. 448-461. The Geological Society of American, Inc., Boulder, Colorado
Weissmann, G. S., Jeffery F. Mount, and Graham E. Fogg. 2002 Glacially Driven Cycles in Accumulation Space and Sequence Stratigraphy of a Stream-Dominated Alluvial Fan, San Joaquin Valley, California, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research 72(2):240-251.
White, Dutin.
2016 Stratigraphy and Transmissivity of the Kaweah River Fan, Visalia, California.
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. California State University, Fresno. Fresno, California. https://www.proquest.com/openview/118794a532b347277699195a99f6f447/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750. Accessed June 25, 2024.
Yoshiyama, Ronald M., Eric R. Gerstung, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle 2001 Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook Salmon in the Central valley Drainage of California. Fish Bulletin 179(1):71-176.
Zack, Richard.
2017 Quest for Water Tulare Irrigation District its History, People, and Progression.
PartnerPress.org, Carlsbad, California.
1286
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
APPENDIX A
Personnel Qualifications
1287
Consuelo Sauls, M.A., RPA 41591505 [email protected] Archaeologist 559.797.1572
6083 N. Figarden Dr., Ste. 616, Fresno, CA 93722
Professional Experience
2019 –Present Principal Investigator, Taylored Archaeology, Fresno, California
2018 – 2019 Staff Archaeologist, Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California
2016 – 2018 Principal Investigator, Soar Environmental Consulting, Inc., Fresno, California
2015 Archivist/Database Technician, Development and
Conservation Management, Inc., Laguna Beach,
California
2013 Laboratory Research Assistant, Durham University
Archaeology Department and Archaeology Museum,
Durham, England, UK
2011 – 2012 Laboratory Technician, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
2008 – 2009 Laboratory Technician, California State University, Fresno 2008 Field School, California State University, Fresno
Technical Qualifications
Ms. Sauls meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as an archaeologist. She has conducted pedestrian surveys, supervised Extended Phase I survey, authored technical reports, and completed the Section 106 process with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer. Her experience includes data recovery excavation at Western Mono sites and processing recovered artifacts in the laboratory as well as conducting archival research about prehistory and ethnography of Central California.
Ms. Sauls has authored and contributed to technical and letter reports in compliance with of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She also has supported NHPA tribal consultation and responded to Assembly Bill 52 tribal comments. Ms. Sauls also has an extensive background supervising laboratory processing, cataloging, and conservation of prehistoric and historical archaeological collections. In addition, she worked with the Rock Art Heritage Group in the management, preservation, and presentation of rock art in museums throughout England, including a thorough analysis of the British Museum’s rock art collections. At Durham University Archaeology Museum, Ms. Sauls processed the excavated skeletal remains of 30 individuals from the seventeenth century.
Areas of Expertise
• Cultural Resource Management
• CEQA and Federal regulations
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Laboratory Management
• Technical Writing
• Phase I Assessments
Years of Experience
• 17
Education
• M.A., Archaeology, University of
Durham, 2014
• B.A., Anthropology, California
State University, Fresno, 2009
Registrations/Certifications
• Registered Professional
Archaeologist 41591505
Professional Affiliations
• Coalition for Diversity in California
Archaeology
• Society for American Archaeology
• Society for California Archaeology
• Society of Black Archaeologists
1288
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
APPENDIX B
Records Search Results
1289
9/30/2025
Consuelo Sauls
Taylored Archaeology
6083 N. Figarden Drive, Suite 616
Fresno, CA 93722
Re: Tulare County Education Project
Records Search File No.: 25-385
The Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on Visalia USGS 7.5’ quad. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and the 0.5 mile radius:
As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: ☒ Custom GIS Maps ☐ GIS Data ☐ Hand Drawn Maps (Inyo County Only)
Resources within project area: None
Resources within 0.5 mile radius: P-54-005296, TUL-PRO-007 Reports within project area: TU-00041, 01190, 01747
Reports within 0.5 mile radius: TU-00534, 00620, 01085, 01498 NOTE: “Other” report locations were omitted, per the CHRIS Data Request Form.
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☒ not available Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ☒ not available Note:
OHP Built Environment Resources Directory: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed 1290
Caltrans Bridge Survey: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/cultural-studies/california-historical-bridges-tunnels Ethnographic Information: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Literature: Not available at SSJVIC
Historical Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/
Local Inventories: Not available at SSJVIC
GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx#searchTabIndex=0&searchByTypeIndex=1 and/or http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb8489p15p;developer=local;style=oac4;doc.view=items Shipwreck Inventory: Not available at SSJVIC; please see https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/
Soil Survey Maps: Not available at SSJVIC; please see
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Invoices for Information Center services will be sent under separate cover from the California State University, Bakersfield Accounting Office.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
Sincerely,
Celeste M. Thomson
Coordinator
1291
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Tulare County Office of Education Administration and Conference Center Expansion Project
APPENDIX C
Sacred Lands File Search Results
1292
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION